Author Topic: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy  (Read 78192 times)

Offline Baz Smythe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,922
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #600 on: February 22, 2012, 08:10:32 pm »
Actually I understand his concept.

The problem I have is this.

Liverpool are competing against two clubs with infinite capital (Chelsea and City). And two Clubs with better underlying fundamentals (i.e. far more inherent revenues) (Man U and Arsenal) and each year you have to compete against them for CL. This being Liverpool's inherent philosophy.

So given that you have a massive competitive disadvantage against 4 players competing for 4 positions why would you choose to compete against them?

The problem he faces is that he can never turn the business cash flow positive? And given this the inherent value is negative. Ultimately all he has bought is a poison chalice. Because he has to invest every year in something he cant really achieve.

So if you can explain to me why you would buy a business that must compete each year to come top against 4 companies that have inherently better fundamentals I will understand. I know he probably bought what he thought was an undervalued asset but as he is going destroy value each year it is only a question of time that the asset ends being a liability. Of course he could stop competing and cut costs but then he would be crucified. Lets see how cash flow negative the business is. Then you will realize that he is not adding value every year but losing money every.

P.S. I do agree he can make money by financing a new stadium through debt and getting supporters to pay for it. That is clearly a massive enhancement of shareholder value. It is, however, long term and quite speculative at the moment. But I do see the shareholder value enhancement.

P.S.2 I dont totally disagree with you.  I own shares in now what is a private company - Spurs - which I bought when they were worth 80m ( and are now worth considerably less) on the basis that valuations would increase. So I do not think it was a bad investment - I just think he has a big obligation.


You clearly must be an accountant with these such negative views. (no offence to accountants)

He can definitely turn this place into a nice tidy profit by getting naming rights for the stadium, naming rights for stands also like Man utd do and have seats sponsored by a car company. Arsenal sold the Emirates the name for £100 mil over 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised with how shrewd are guys are if we doubled if not tripled that in a ten year period. This having the naming rights pay for majority then it's have some debt placed on the club which would be payed down in extra money gained for selling extra seats. Then after 10 years you have the option to renew the naming rights for another ridiculous sum therefore paying off the stadium or using extra cash for players and your jollys.

Once we have have the stadium In place our value will double if not triple, I seem to remember us being valued in the 5-600 million mark already Straight after purchase with potential to be worth £1 billion upwards. Mr Henry can then either sell us or guarantee himself a cashflow income yearly with dividends and the like.

Don't forget when you get super rich it's not about having the most money it's about having the biggest assets which bring with it power. If he owns one of the biggest baseball and biggest football teams in the world then he is a very powerful and famous man. this club when it has a new stadium and all areas of marketing have been exploited will be back part of the big 5 clubs in the world.

Am I right here or am I missing the point?
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 #601 on: February 22, 2012, 08:38:43 pm »
You clearly must be an accountant with these such negative views. (no offence to accountants)

He can definitely turn this place into a nice tidy profit by getting naming rights for the stadium, naming rights for stands also like Man utd do and have seats sponsored by a car company. Arsenal sold the Emirates the name for £100 mil over 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised with how shrewd are guys are if we doubled if not tripled that in a ten year period. This having the naming rights pay for majority then it's have some debt placed on the club which would be payed down in extra money gained for selling extra seats. Then after 10 years you have the option to renew the naming rights for another ridiculous sum therefore paying off the stadium or using extra cash for players and your jollys.

Once we have have the stadium In place our value will double if not triple, I seem to remember us being valued in the 5-600 million mark already Straight after purchase with potential to be worth £1 billion upwards. Mr Henry can then either sell us or guarantee himself a cashflow income yearly with dividends and the like.

Don't forget when you get super rich it's not about having the most money it's about having the biggest assets which bring with it power. If he owns one of the biggest baseball and biggest football teams in the world then he is a very powerful and famous man. this club when it has a new stadium and all areas of marketing have been exploited will be back part of the big 5 clubs in the world.

Am I right here or am I missing the point?
Look you are absolutely right.

The key for him making money is to finance a new stadium through debt and clean up through the debt pay down.

Arsenal's share price has risen 20 fold relative to Spurs over the last 5 years for exactly this reason. Even though Spurs have outperformed Arsenal in the league.

Essentially what you do is get supporters to pay for an asset that you own at the end. I do understand this as a shareholder enhancement strategy. It does of course restrict the cash flows into the team building but from a shareholders point of view it is incredibly value creative. It has worked incredibly well for Arsenal and obviously shareholders are massively appreciative. The share price of Arsenal has gone up 8x over the last 10 years. I definitely think that FSG can do something similar with Liverpool.

Essentially it is a great way of having a dividend paid.

But we really do need to invest in the squad and if we cannot for 10 years it will certainly restrict our progress. But as you say I do agree it will be a very good shareholder building strategy. It is just that I dont really want to see it at the expense of the growth of the club.

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 #602 on: February 22, 2012, 09:11:58 pm »
You clearly must be an accountant with these such negative views. (no offence to accountants)
I am not an accountant and please dont take me to be 'negative'

I am hugely positive of both our management and our owners.

It is simply that I dont think things come easy and I do think things take time. I can see us winning the league in 5 years time but I do think it will take us that long. But I do not care if we achieve that goal and it takes us that long.

What I do not agree with is that our shareholders bought us cheap in some sort of rigged auction. Because when you take the price add the negative cash flow and the investment in the squad and the commitment to compete it is not cheap. And why anyone would wish to compete for the premiership with the expectation of winning each year against 4 clubs with better fundamentals I do not know. So I wish them luck, reckon they bought pretty cheap, and hope we are successful and they can sell for a ton of money but they face a difficult task. The idea that the business is profitable is total bollocks.

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 #603 on: February 22, 2012, 09:37:16 pm »
Look DanA your argument is that although you allowed 25 players in your squad you can have less than 25 players. Now if you have less than 25 players - ie 24 - you must be stupid to believe you will do better than having 25 players (in that from a supporters point of the marginal contribution of  a player cannot be less than zero.)

Your argument about the keeper is a straw man argument because at no stage did I indicate we should have less than 11 men on the pitch. It's ridiculous to suggest that with 22 players, and a full academy, along with a January transfer window that could ever happen. So please stop with that argument. I am not suggesting field less than the required players.

Lets assume the market is perfectly efficient and that if you buy a 6m player you get  more than if you buy a 5m player. Lets also assume that you can only field healthy players. It then is completely about who gets more money on the pitch. The team that get more money on the pitch over the course of a season will win.

DanA's red's:
5 players bought at 8m
10 players at 3m
5 players at 1m
20 player squad cost: 75m

Abraks blues:
25 players at  3m each
squad cost 75m

In game 1 No injuries:
DanA's reds gets 58m on the pitch.
Abrak's blues get 33m on the pitch
DanA's reds wins

In game 2 I have my 3 best players injured
DanA's reds gets 43m on the pitch
Abrak's blues gets 33m on the pitch
DanA's reds wins

I don't know how else to explain it other than to say the more money you get on the pitch, the more likely you are to win and by spending money on extra players that likely have very little role to play you are diluting the amount you can spend on the players that play every game when fit. There is a point where the opportunity cost of depth is greater than the opportunity cost of upgrading your players that regularly play. It's the most basic of economic principals yet you don't seem to be able to grasp it.....why?

« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 09:47:39 pm 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 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 #604 on: February 22, 2012, 10:06:32 pm »
Your argument about the keeper is a straw man argument because at no stage did I indicate we should have less than 11 men on the pitch. It's ridiculous to suggest that with 22 players, and a full academy, along with a January transfer window that could ever happen. So please stop with that argument. I am not suggesting field less than the required players.

Lets assume the market is perfectly efficient and that if you buy a 6m player you get  more than if you buy a 5m player. Lets also assume that you can only field healthy players. It then then it is completely about who gets more money on the pitch. The team that get more money on the pitch over the course of a season will win.

DanA's red's:
5 players bought at 8m
10 players at 3m
5 players at 1m
20 player squad cost: 75m

Abraks blues:
25 players at  3m each
squad cost 75m

In game 1 No injuries:
DanA's reds gets 58m on the pitch.
Abrak's blues get 33m on the pitch
DanA's reds wins

In game 2 I have my 3 best players injured
DanA's reds gets 43m on the pitch
Abrak's blues gets 33m on the pitch
DanA's reds wins

I don't know how else to explain it other than to say the more money you get on the pitch, the more likely you are to win and by spending money on extra players that likely have very little role to play you are diluting the amount you can spend on the players that play every game when fit. There is a point where the opportunity cost of depth is greater than the opportunity cost of upgrading your players that regularly play. It's the most basic of economic principals yet you don't seem to be able to grasp it.....why?
I think we are having slightly different arguments. I do understand your argument it is that you dont understand mijne.

I think you are arguing that 22 good players might be better than 25 not so good players. I would agree.

However my argument is that no owner of a club should say I only have 22 players. Because he is allowed 25 players. So if he cant afford a team he shouldnt own one. So what I am saying is that your 22 players might be better than my 25 players but if that is the case I would like a new owner who can afford your 22 players and can buy 3 more.

Look DanA if you wish to argue that you only have a squad of really good players - only 11 which are worth a lot go ahead. All I am saying is the owner who argues that we do not need a full squad - say 22 players - is really arguing that we need a new owner.

And honestly DanA I suspect this is a principle with Henry. I totally understand your point about how we might efficiently be able to spend on 22 players without our prerequisite english quota etc but Henry would be pretty strict on the fact that he must afford the english quota or he cannot afford a club. And you have to admit however brilliant your 22 are - your 22 with 3 extra financed by another person will be better.

What you find difficult to understand is that in theory you have to have a minimum of 8 home grown players. So if you dont have 8 home grown players in theory you shouldnt own a club. All you are saying is given a budget of x it is better to have less players because foreign players are better value. But if you cant afford a team dont play.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 10:39:14 pm by Abrak »

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 #605 on: February 22, 2012, 10:21:31 pm »
Your argument about the keeper is a straw man argument because at no stage did I indicate we should have less than 11 men on the pitch. It's ridiculous to suggest that with 22 players, and a full academy, along with a January transfer window that could ever happen. So please stop with that argument. I am not suggesting field less than the required players.

Lets assume the market is perfectly efficient and that if you buy a 6m player you get  more than if you buy a 5m player. Lets also assume that you can only field healthy players. It then is completely about who gets more money on the pitch. The team that get more money on the pitch over the course of a season will win.

DanA's red's:
5 players bought at 8m
10 players at 3m
5 players at 1m
20 player squad cost: 75m

Abraks blues:
25 players at  3m each
squad cost 75m

In game 1 No injuries:
DanA's reds gets 58m on the pitch.
Abrak's blues get 33m on the pitch
DanA's reds wins

In game 2 I have my 3 best players injured
DanA's reds gets 43m on the pitch
Abrak's blues gets 33m on the pitch
DanA's reds wins

I don't know how else to explain it other than to say the more money you get on the pitch, the more likely you are to win and by spending money on extra players that likely have very little role to play you are diluting the amount you can spend on the players that play every game when fit. There is a point where the opportunity cost of depth is greater than the opportunity cost of upgrading your players that regularly play. It's the most basic of economic principals yet you don't seem to be able to grasp it.....why?
You are quite funny.

I am not incredibly stupid. I got your point. You only need to tell me two or three times.

Not ten times

BTW I have no idea whether your theory would actually work in the real world but do squads have less than 25 players because of the lack of home grown players
« Last Edit: February 22, 2012, 10:30:55 pm by Abrak »

Offline lionel_messias

  • likes pulling cocker spaniels out of Kim Kardassian's ass
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,449
  • 'You can throw your plan in the purple bin'
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #606 on: February 22, 2012, 11:22:35 pm »
#yawn
Follow me on twatter: @JDMessias

Offline Ma Vie en Rouge

  • J'aime voir...!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,176
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #607 on: February 22, 2012, 11:31:15 pm »
The term knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing leaps out from this - as it does in so many things in this thread.

How does a young 21 year old striker feel when he's valued at 35m instead of 15m? Does he understand the distinction between the differentials when the press ram it down his throat every day that he cost 35m or the opposition fans hurl what a waste of money in his face on match days? He is not a commodity except when everything is simply a number and not an individual.

I would hope that somehow we combine the two and if Henry genuinely is as smart as he thinks he learns lessons from the Carroll deal in terms of footballers not being inert commodities.

The concept of fan ownership is not new - nor is it unique - Real Madrid, Barcelona, every club in Germany - all operating in the real world, all fan owned. If I had my way fan ownership would be a legal requirement - the fact very few can be bothered to understand it does not mean it is not viable - Al555 is right for me in the current climate it would need to be more of the Bayern model than the Spanish. Clubs are community assets - they provide social value to that community - it should never have been allowed to become the travesty it is today. 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.

Its one reason why I find Wigan and Fulham  just as offensive as City or Chelsea they are propped up by individual wealth not their respective communities.

@Al555 - I understand your view but I'm sure Leeds thought much the same way and Rangers. There are also the rising urban areas in Russia and Turkey to consider - if money brings success then those clubs are going to have an increasing say. I see it as a gamble however big the potential fan base. We either join in or lead the sport in a different direction. I'd like to see us lead teh sport away from the plastic flag ideal or the contrived blue moon marketing. If City and Chelsea are allowed to dictate the whole wage structue of the sport then the ideas upon  which the game were founded are lost - there will not be fair competition - your idea of a european league becomes inevitable - the franchise model from the states becomes the norm and supporters engagement in the whole game becomes  merely that of a consumer - brand loyalty will fluctuate with the wind - its not an ideal I can get behind and not one that interests me - I fully appreciate that makes me a dinosaur and I can live with that.



Great post.

Offline steveeastend

  • Learnt to play them drums
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,853
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #608 on: February 23, 2012, 12:11:43 am »
If City and Chelsea are allowed to dictate the whole wage structue of the sport then the ideas upon  which the game were founded are lost - there will not be fair competition - your idea of a european league becomes inevitable - the franchise model from the states becomes the norm and supporters engagement in the whole game becomes  merely that of a consumer - brand loyalty will fluctuate with the wind - its not an ideal I can get behind and not one that interests me - I fully appreciate that makes me a dinosaur and I can live with that.

This pretty much is already reality in England and for the top clubs in Italy and Spain. It will never be true for the rest of european football. They all follow the fan-ownership model you favour.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

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 #609 on: February 23, 2012, 02:33:20 am »
The term knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing leaps out from this - as it does in so many things in this thread.

How does a young 21 year old striker feel when he's valued at 35m instead of 15m? Does he understand the distinction between the differentials when the press ram it down his throat every day that he cost 35m or the opposition fans hurl what a waste of money in his face on match days? He is not a commodity except when everything is simply a number and not an individual.

I would hope that somehow we combine the two and if Henry genuinely is as smart as he thinks he learns lessons from the Carroll deal in terms of footballers not being inert commodities.

The concept of fan ownership is not new - nor is it unique - Real Madrid, Barcelona, every club in Germany - all operating in the real world, all fan owned. If I had my way fan ownership would be a legal requirement - the fact very few can be bothered to understand it does not mean it is not viable - Al555 is right for me in the current climate it would need to be more of the Bayern model than the Spanish. Clubs are community assets - they provide social value to that community - it should never have been allowed to become the travesty it is today. 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.

Its one reason why I find Wigan and Fulham  just as offensive as City or Chelsea they are propped up by individual wealth not their respective communities.

@Al555 - I understand your view but I'm sure Leeds thought much the same way and Rangers. There are also the rising urban areas in Russia and Turkey to consider - if money brings success then those clubs are going to have an increasing say. I see it as a gamble however big the potential fan base. We either join in or lead the sport in a different direction. I'd like to see us lead teh sport away from the plastic flag ideal or the contrived blue moon marketing. If City and Chelsea are allowed to dictate the whole wage structue of the sport then the ideas upon  which the game were founded are lost - there will not be fair competition - your idea of a european league becomes inevitable - the franchise model from the states becomes the norm and supporters engagement in the whole game becomes  merely that of a consumer - brand loyalty will fluctuate with the wind - its not an ideal I can get behind and not one that interests me - I fully appreciate that makes me a dinosaur and I can live with that.
Maybe what I said was said in the wrong way.

You are probably right that a 'sports business' ought to be owned by its fan base. And as long as all the clubs were owned by their fans I think it would make a lot of sense. I was rather rude about the concept of Liverpool being owned by its fan base simply because it doesnt make sense to me when the other clubs are not and the cost of capital for a fan must be way,way higher than say Mansour. But if all clubs were owned by fans it would make sense.

I also agree with your general sentiment that football is both a business and a sport and at some point it gets so badly skewed that it is no longer a sport. If all we are playing is a game where the player who spends the most wins regardless of losses, wins it is no longer a sport. It is a game. And it is a game where the person who is prepared to lose the most wins. So it is an incredibly stupid game.

If you allow people to spend unlimited amounts of money. First you have already rendered it a financial game rather than a sport. Secondly, you have rendered the role of the supporter that finances his club to being meaningless on the basis there will always be somebody wealthy enough (not even a fan) who will wish to show he financially more powerful than a clubs entire supporter base.

So I do know the value of something and I do know how to render it worthless. And the Premiership is doing a good job of putting more and more money into the business and creating less and less value.

But please understand that it would be illogical for a fan base that values money to compete against Mansour who does not.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 02:41:34 am by Abrak »

Offline Dmode101

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
  • Being a reds fan is like match day, everyday.
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #610 on: February 23, 2012, 02:59:02 am »
I am not an accountant and please dont take me to be 'negative'

I am hugely positive of both our management and our owners.

It is simply that I dont think things come easy and I do think things take time. I can see us winning the league in 5 years time but I do think it will take us that long. But I do not care if we achieve that goal and it takes us that long.

What I do not agree with is that our shareholders bought us cheap in some sort of rigged auction. Because when you take the price add the negative cash flow and the investment in the squad and the commitment to compete it is not cheap. And why anyone would wish to compete for the premiership with the expectation of winning each year against 4 clubs with better fundamentals I do not know. So I wish them luck, reckon they bought pretty cheap, and hope we are successful and they can sell for a ton of money but they face a difficult task. The idea that the business is profitable is total bollocks.

This is the contradiction I am talking about. If its bollocks then why did an average player like FSG came in. If you cant answer that then why assume the auction wasn't rigged? you think rich and powerful men like Henry are stupid? or do we really know how rich are his group? we don't do we. theres too many assumption to put them in the "they are brave and stupid so god help us all" PR here. our value is pegged to the number of fans globally more than just a stadium built with a majority of fan based. alot of local fans here in the forum have a myopic view of how big is the brand of liverpool and how much it can rake in the global merchandise and other related marketing deals than just compared to a weekly stadium ticket prices. do we have a report on the number of fans worldwide and its disposable income and willingness to spend? not that i have seen it. are the numbers dwindling because we have done nothing much to be at the top? perhaps. these are critical to marketing strategy and ROI. and back to the value of the club. very very few clubs have a global fanbase like liverpool. that kind of figures and the way sport loyalty is are a marketers and investors dream. however, it can all die in one generation and disappear into the wind if we keep floating about.

I seriously doubt that we challenging in any front.
If you judge people for what they are not who they are, you will make genuine friends rather than friends of circumstance.

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 #611 on: February 23, 2012, 03:16:42 am »
This is the contradiction I am talking about. If its bollocks then why did an average player like FSG came in. If you cant answer that then why assume the auction wasn't rigged? you think rich and powerful men like Henry are stupid? or do we really know how rich are his group? we don't do we. theres too many assumption to put them in the "they are brave and stupid so god help us all" PR here. our value is pegged to the number of fans globally more than just a stadium built with a majority of fan based. alot of local fans here in the forum have a myopic view of how big is the brand of liverpool and how much it can rake in the global merchandise and other related marketing deals than just compared to a weekly stadium ticket prices. do we have a report on the number of fans worldwide and its disposable income and willingness to spend? not that i have seen it. are the numbers dwindling because we have done nothing much to be at the top? perhaps. these are critical to marketing strategy and ROI. and back to the value of the club. very very few clubs have a global fanbase like liverpool. that kind of figures and the way sport loyalty is are a marketers and investors dream. however, it can all die in one generation and disappear into the wind if we keep floating about.

I seriously doubt that we challenging in any front.
Sorry to confuse. I was meaning annual profit rather than whether they will make a profit on their investment.

We are not profitable as a club. We might be in two or three years. If Spurs can be, we can.

But I suspect our next results will show losses close to 60m so we have a long way to go. But FSG came in because they paid 200m (or so) and Arsenal is currently worth 1.1bn so there is good upside. It is all about the costs of repairing the damage of the past. But they have already put net 47m into the squad, there will be 60m of losses this year, so their cost of purchase has increased (although they would have assumed that to an extent).

Offline horne

  • y
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,526
  • through a storm
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #612 on: February 23, 2012, 03:30:47 am »
correct me if im wrong here...but wont the fair play rules take away the bottomless pit of money the likes of city have to spend  and thus the advantage goes wityh it..
secondly...didnt maureen when he was at chelsea win the league several times without a big squad?.
He said something about needing only 16 first team regulars ?
However hard you try to simplify the route to success ,footy will always surprise you and make you throw away the rule book and start again.

commonsense and a football brain will always beat the binary number cruncher...when it comes to success

however defining success is another problem...are we talking of profit or trophies ?
success = the absence of the fear of failure

Offline Dmode101

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
  • Being a reds fan is like match day, everyday.
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #613 on: February 23, 2012, 03:32:27 am »
Sorry to confuse. I was meaning annual profit rather than whether they will make a profit on their investment.

We are not profitable as a club. We might be in two or three years. If Spurs can be, we can.

But I suspect our next results will show losses close to 60m so we have a long way to go. But FSG came in because they paid 200m (or so) and Arsenal is currently worth 1.1bn so there is good upside. It is all about the costs of repairing the damage of the past. But they have already put net 47m into the squad, there will be 60m of losses this year, so their cost of purchase has increased (although they would have assumed that to an extent).

so ok. i misunderstood. sounds quite right in their squad expenditure. The sponsor deals should offset some of their losses. together with merchandise profits. all in all. things are still heealthy as long as kenny and comolli are doing well above average in the table and the way we play is entertaining. thanks for the figures tho. I didnt know arsenal is worth that much.
If you judge people for what they are not who they are, you will make genuine friends rather than friends of circumstance.

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 #614 on: February 23, 2012, 03:52:58 am »
You are quite funny.

I am not incredibly stupid. I got your point. You only need to tell me two or three times.

Not ten times

BTW I have no idea whether your theory would actually work in the real world but do squads have less than 25 players because of the lack of home grown players

It's my understanding that only Man City have the full quota of 25 players registered.
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 #615 on: February 23, 2012, 07:30:58 am »
It's my understanding that only Man City have the full quota of 25 players registered.
Well this site seems to disagree.

http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/squad-lists/squad-lists-february-2012.pdf

But Henry's theory is pretty simple. It is the role of the owner theoretically to provide 25 players not to provide the number of players he thinks is best value. He is incredibly confident that 25 is better than 24. He doesnt think it is the role of the shareholder to reduce the number of players because they are worth more because he really isnt very value orientated but more specifically if he wanted to run a club with 12 players valued at a lot instead of 25 players valued at less all you are actuallly saying is that you are the wrong owner.

If we have a squad of 11 incredibly good players we are just playing an investment experiment which is that we think 11 really good players can beat everyone elses 25 ok players. That is just a huge gamble and a theory about how brilliant our players are. It may well work but who knows. One thing we know for sure is that your gamble with 11 players would be better off if he had the same 11 players and added a further 14

And when it comes to English players and the need to have 8 theoretically the fact that they are overvalued relative to overseas players is simply obvious rather than a reason to not buy them. English players being overvalued is almost an axiom so if you want a full squad you have to overpay for English players. Obviously clubs will have less than a full squad but you know 25 is more than 24 while you dont know value.

Seriously if you know that 25 is better than 24 but your 24 is better value all you are saying is you cant afford the investment. If we are allowed a squad of 25 with 8 English players your responsibility as a shareholder is to provide them not provide half of them at much better value because all you are saying is that you shouldnt be financing the business.

And look we are overpaying for English on the basis that they are worth something and you need them in your squad. All you are saying is that we dont need them in the squad because we can have a smaller squad. Which simply states that the value added from the English player you assume to be zero because you dont have him.

And dont say you would rather have 18 good players than 25 crap ones because all you are saying is that you want someone to buy 18 good players and another 7. So we are buying English players because you have to have 8 in a squad of 25. Of course you dont have to have one but that is a disadvantage and they are bound to be overpriced relative to overseas players. But you know they underpriced relative to not having one in the first place.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 07:50:33 am by Abrak »

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 #616 on: February 23, 2012, 07:47:03 am »
Fair play things changed in January with City. QPR now have 25 players as does Stoke & Tottenham
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 07:51:14 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 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 #617 on: February 23, 2012, 08:21:12 am »
Fair play things changed in January with City. QPR now have 25 players as does Stoke & Tottenham
I thought a bunch had them but I was really just making a point. Which is that Henry is not that value oriented. I am sure he knows Henderson was expensive but he is happy to assume that he is bound to be expensive. And he will naturally assume that if you have to have 8 home grown players you cannot win if you do not have 8 home grown players because you decide  not to buy them because they are too expensive. If you assume you can win with less than 8 home grown players you should not be playing the game in the first place.

Offline steveeastend

  • Learnt to play them drums
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,853
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #618 on: February 23, 2012, 10:25:35 am »
For this year I would have prefered the 18 top players in order to make it 4th and then overpay for the british as soon as we know we will have to play CL football.

And don´t tell me we weren´t able to get them. If Falcao went to Atlético because he was convinced of the project rather then earning ridiculious money then you know that there are still top quality players out there who can be convinced to join us. Maybe Comolli simply wasn´t very good in doing this..
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Baz Smythe

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,922
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #619 on: February 23, 2012, 11:08:02 am »
I believe we spent so much on overvalued English players in summer was so we did it before the FFP comes into play. I believe Comolli and Kenny have come to the conclucion that when the FFP comes in English players value will jump even more.

Or at least when the FFP comes in and we have a limit on our spends:

We need 3 players to help boost our squad if we needed an English player for the quota then it would look like 25-30 mil on an english player and 2 - 7- 9 million pound players.  Where as now we can just spend 25-30 mil on a world class player if available and 2 - 7- 9 million pound players.

So you see filling our quota now will give us a choice when back in the champions league and not having to spend on English players when our spends will be limited.

Sorry explanation is crap but it sounds right in my head just crap when I try to write it out
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 11:16:02 am by Baz Smythe »
Follow me on twitter.

https://twitter.com/1chrissmith1

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,571
  • JFT 97
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #620 on: February 23, 2012, 11:45:11 am »
I think what is being overlooked is that some positions are always going to be more expensive to fill than others. Strikers and gamebreakers are invariably the most expensive players to recruit so do what City have done. They have brought in real quality to fill those positions Aguero, Balloteli, Tevez, Dzeko, Silva and Yaya Toure score the goals and create the chances.

The home grown players are then used to fill out the squad to fulfil the roles that home grown players traditionally excel in where physical abilities often outweigh technical abilities. Joe Hart and Micah Richards were brought through as teenagers and then players like Barry, Lescot, Milner etc are used to add hard work and work rate to the side.

In short the home grown players have been used to add the graft whilst the craft has been brought in from abroard where technical ability is considered more important than work rate. Instead of doing that in the summer we brought in Carroll and Downing as a Striker and a gamebreaker and because of the English premium we paid a similar amount for them as City paid for Aguero and Silva.

Yes you have to 8 home grown players but that doesn't mean you have to buy Strikers and wingers, all successful teams have a mixture of craft and graft so recruit accordingly, bring in top quality in the important areas and underpay in the less important areas.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Haemoglobin

  • The Phantom Drive-By Dunker
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,513
  • Nunca Caminarás Solo
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #621 on: February 23, 2012, 12:01:09 pm »
I believe we spent so much on overvalued English players in summer was so we did it before the FFP comes into play. I believe Comolli and Kenny have come to the conclucion that when the FFP comes in English players value will jump even more.

Or at least when the FFP comes in and we have a limit on our spends:

We need 3 players to help boost our squad if we needed an English player for the quota then it would look like 25-30 mil on an english player and 2 - 7- 9 million pound players.  Where as now we can just spend 25-30 mil on a world class player if available and 2 - 7- 9 million pound players.

So you see filling our quota now will give us a choice when back in the champions league and not having to spend on English players when our spends will be limited.
Agree with that in theory, although we'll have hardly saved money on our English choices as a whole, FFP or not. I am sure though that Henderson's market value would only go up if we hadn't come in at this stage, whatever fuss some people made, 'cause his qualities would continue to stand out more in a lesser team.

If we take it all apart...

Likely Liverpool squad 2012/13

8 homegrown senior players:

Johnson*
Kelly
Spearing
Gerrard*
Henderson
Downing
Carroll
Bellamy*

8 non-homegrown senior players:

Reina*
Skrtel*
Agger*
Enrique*
Coates
Lucas*
Adam
Suarez*

*top players right now, among the most effective in the league (allowing for occasional dips in form)


Then...

7 outstanding youth players, already given squad numbers, clearly considered by management as being close to earning more regular premier league football experience at some point in the not-too-distant future (most no younger than the likes of Gerrard, Fowler, McManaman, Owen, etc. when they broke into the first team):

Robinson
Flanagan
Wisdom
Suso
Coady**
Shelvey
Sterling

**perhaps questionable on current form, recent developmental progress, competition for places

And you can maybe add the likes of Adorjan and Joao Carlos to that list sooner rather than later.


So that's 16 seniors so far, with the path to first team football of a further (let's say) five properly exceptional teenage talents left reasonably clear, just as it should be [Robinson at leftback; Wisdom at centreback; Suso in midfield; Shelvey in attacking midfield; Sterling on either wing - it's entirely arguable that right now we don't actually possess any senior equivalents in terms of sheer natural quality to Suso and Sterling]. Though they're not currently ready for the big time, and have the Nextgen competition and reserve games to focus on this term, next season is surely when we'll begin seeing a few of them getting regular cameos, which will lead to a few low-profile starts while seniors are rested if they manage to impress anything like as much as they have done against some quality youth opposition. A couple or so of them definitely stand out at that level, and if anything have been let down by a lack of similar quality throughout the rest of their team, or at least the other hot prospects not shining as brightly as expected.

21 valid starting/deputising options, then.

I haven't listed any back-up goalkeepers, so let's just say Doni makes it 22. I've assumed Jones, Carragher, Aurelio, Maxi and Kuyt will have left. If we sign just 3 more players (I want a midfielder, a real winger, and a goalscorer, kthx), then there's your magic number 25, with the under-21 contingent being no less valid playing options really than the likes of Spearing, Downing, Kelly, Coates, etc. The experience they currently lack is all there to be gained - you either wilt in the sun, or blossom with the sudden pressure like Kelly and Robinson did. In fact, a few of those boys could well tear shit up in a way the seniors haven't been able to on occasion, as long as they're adequately protected by their teammates and referees.

Am I doing it wrong? I suppose I sort of understand where Abrak's coming from about what the owners' primary role should be in regards to our 25-man squad allowance, but why is it necessary to deliberately block the path of our brightest youth products with senior journeymen? Only 11 men are out on the pitch at the starting whistle of every game, and at least 6 of them are damn near permanent fixtures in our side. We'd realistically only properly utilise around 19 or 20 players in a single season, even if we were rotation-mad.
Apart from a couple of fairly poor choices in terms of judgment of individual quality, our owners' overall approach to senior transfers so far is quite alright. Suarez, Henderson, Enrique and Adam were all very decent bits of business. We went crazy with the Torres cash, but regardless, Carroll can still become a very strong, effective player for us. How Downing's turned out for the most part might well dissuade FSG from the Buy British thing, seeing as Luis and Jose have been the ones to really make spots in our best xi their own - I don't imagine we'll see us shelling out top dollar for another English player over 24, at least not anytime soon.


Being optimistic, in the summer I expect us to attempt to buy both a striker and right winger to replace Kuyt, perhaps bring through Sterling to put some pressure on Downing, and maybe also augment our midfield with a steely type, to ease the burden on Lucas, free up Gerrard/Adam/Henderson to concentrate on creative play, and to compete with them and Spearing for starts. Kelly, Coates, Wisdom, Robinson and Flanagan will be tasked with deputising for the now-immovable back four, and I doubt we'll bring in any more defenders over 21 unless we have big injury concerns. If those 2 or 3 additions are real quality, we'll have a pretty strong side and a pretty serviceable squad, regardless of how many spaces are left untaken by pretty pointless 'fillers'. Sometimes we panic because when the few cracks in the team get expoited (lack of cold steel in the centre of midfield, poor service from wide areas, shocking conversion rate), it spoils the absolutely awesome foundations (how well the new back 5 complement each other's strengths, Lucas' [sorely-missed] ubiquity, Gerrard's drive, Suarez's invention, etc).
"under-promise and over-deliver"

Offline Gnurglan

  • The Swedish Savaloy
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,517
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #622 on: February 23, 2012, 12:47:49 pm »
Agree. That is the type of ownership I expect we will get. I think the key is not the amount of money but how it is used and when. We bought before we cleaned house. Ya, the net was not huge, but they funded Kenny's buys first before selling on the deadwood.

As to how Kenny spent the cash, true that Enrique and Suarez are the only automatic starters. But Henderson wasn't bought to be one this season. He is the future. I think Carroll was expected to be an automatic starter, but he is young and only had short experience of premeirship football. Whether anyone rates either Big Andy and Henderson, the fact the owners supplied the cash quickly for two unproven youngsters is a good sign.

I would argue that what makes the spending overall seem a waste is the performance of Downing. He was bought at a steep price because he filled a glaring hole in our squad down the wings. He has failed and we still lack a wide player. It could be argued that we wasted 20 mil for Downing and got no return on that at all, while with Andy we got a 15 mil player for 35 mil. Getting nothing for 20 million for Downing is the bigger waste of cash. If Downing had performed near his value this summer's spending would be talked about in a much different light.

It is a valid point about future promise and potential, it's just that it looks like an excuse. You can't lose with that point of view. If it's a success, great. If not, then the player will come good later on. Which may well be fair on the individual, but it makes it impossible to judge our buys.

I think it's good that money was made available, it shows trust. No problems with the owners there. But we have not spent well. We have bought bench players for an enormous amount of money and we can't continue like that if we are to improve. Our return is, to be frank, quite poor given what we have spent. And the best we can hope for is that players come good in the future. Would agree SD is the worst buy, but it's the trend rather than the one example which is the real concern. Our selection criterias, after the Suarez buy, need to be looked at. We pick the right types of players, but not the right individuals. It's a very expensive experiment that we need to get back on track.

        * * * * * *


"The key isn't the system itself, but how the players adapt on the pitch. It doesn't matter if it's 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, it's the role of the players that counts." Rafa Benitez

Offline Gnurglan

  • The Swedish Savaloy
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 35,517
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #623 on: February 23, 2012, 02:13:56 pm »
I think what is being overlooked is that some positions are always going to be more expensive to fill than others. Strikers and gamebreakers are invariably the most expensive players to recruit so do what City have done. They have brought in real quality to fill those positions Aguero, Balloteli, Tevez, Dzeko, Silva and Yaya Toure score the goals and create the chances.

The home grown players are then used to fill out the squad to fulfil the roles that home grown players traditionally excel in where physical abilities often outweigh technical abilities. Joe Hart and Micah Richards were brought through as teenagers and then players like Barry, Lescot, Milner etc are used to add hard work and work rate to the side.

In short the home grown players have been used to add the graft whilst the craft has been brought in from abroard where technical ability is considered more important than work rate. Instead of doing that in the summer we brought in Carroll and Downing as a Striker and a gamebreaker and because of the English premium we paid a similar amount for them as City paid for Aguero and Silva.

Yes you have to 8 home grown players but that doesn't mean you have to buy Strikers and wingers, all successful teams have a mixture of craft and graft so recruit accordingly, bring in top quality in the important areas and underpay in the less important areas.

Agree. If we wanted to just fill the quote, we should have signed players like Wilson and Shelvey and (I think they would have counted as homegrown) kept Insua and Pacheco. We could have gone for more experienced options like Barton etc. There were alternatives.

We chose to go for domestic, key players. It didn't work well and we have to hope they will come good in the future. What we need now is to add what we failed to add last summer. And/or we need those players we signed last summer to go through a rapid improvement so they can fill those key roles next season. This will put our scouts and our overall player selection process to the test. A year from now, I guess we can't expect to rely on Bellamy for anything but a backup role. Gerrard needs to have someone who can match his contribution as leader and CM, Maxi and Kuyt will be gone and so will their experience (and no-one has yet replaced their 20+ goals from last season). We need three or four real high quality buys to improve us. In the areas where quality cost the most. Don't think we can afford that without doing a couple of very, very good deals. Somthing like an experienced international, ready to be a leader and first pick every week, for less than 10M. Players with a shelf life of three years or so at that level. We might need two such deals to compensate for the ones we have made so far.

        * * * * * *


"The key isn't the system itself, but how the players adapt on the pitch. It doesn't matter if it's 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, it's the role of the players that counts." Rafa Benitez

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 #624 on: February 23, 2012, 04:33:42 pm »
The thing is though Abrak, there may be a long term issue but football in general is short term foremost. And it´s possible, of course, to outsmart clubs with an financial advanatage by putting as much effort as possible into the short term, and making progress by doing so step by step.

Knowing when exactly to spend the right amount of money on the right bunch of top quality player in order to keep the balance between "borrowed" success and long term stability is the key for being successful in football.
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.

Offline Vulmea

  • Almost saint-like.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,329
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #625 on: February 23, 2012, 04:49:24 pm »
I don't think we necessarily went for home grown players because of the rules so much as prem players because they were proven in the league and they were seen as less risk - Doni, Enrique and Coates dont qualify as home grown - Gulacsi, Insua, Pacheco, Cole, Konchesky, Ayala would all have qualified as home grown, some even club grown. It clealrly was not the determining factor but it may have been given some weight.

I think we made safe buys not so much in terms of £ or quality but in terms of personality, track record, age, position, location, experience.

I think strange as it may seem we did try to improve the quality of our squad whilst improving the age profile and overall balance but some of those buys just haven't delivered what was expected. I dont think thats a policy or strategic mistake - maybe a tactical error in the individuals selected or in the assessment of how quick an impact they would have.

If as we are told FSG are about risk mitigation then playing safe whilst dipping their toes in the market would make sense.

City on teh other hand did not target craft - they targetted any high profile, available player they could get - they signed centre halves, left backs, midfielders, the lot and just discarded many of them. It a self fulfilling thing that the players that catch the eye, catch the eye - but De Jong? Kolorov, Boateng et al............

I think its easy to underestimate the change from a mid table club to Liverpool - the profile is so much higher, the expectation level so much greater, the opposition play so much tighter etc and every nuance and body movement is analysed , every mistake highlighted.

Being able to play in the Prem is a consideration I just wonder whether it was as big a consideration as it was thought to be and whether the big club factor was really understood. On paper signing Prem players should make it easier to adapt and settle in, in reality its much more about the individual's make up and circumstance.

Likewise the culture shock of changing countries - how do you assess that - are young men more or less likely to adapt than expereince ones, are those from northern climes likely to settle better than those from the sunny south, would spanish speakers find it easier than ukranians, would religion be an issue etc. I think it was FSG's first attempt to play the market maybe they will have learned lessons.

Maybe picking a player thats already demonstrated they can move countries - who captains their country (handles pressure and expectation), that shows signs of ambition and thriving under pressure - maybe who've played at a big club or in interantional tournaments, tat express a preference for LFC over elsewhere - I'm sure FSG and Comolli will be compiling a check list

Thats not to say its mandatory just the more ticks the less risk, the less risk the more likely the deal and the main factor must always be how well can they play.

we have a number of players who I think are good/decent squad players, whether thats what they think they are is another matter and their own make-up would determine whether I'd keep them - without knowing them how can you tell whether they would sit on the bench next season - likewise without knowing who is available to replace them how can you say who should be shipped on?

Thats why I hope decisions over Kuyt, Rodriguez etc have yet to be made - they shouldn't just be moved on because of age both of those lads can add to our squad.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy/Shanklyboy.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,571
  • JFT 97
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #626 on: February 23, 2012, 04:55:26 pm »
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.

I think a bit of context is needed City may of lost £195m but they spent £155m on players. They are in a phase where they are playing catch up and are investing heavily in players. It is very unlikely that they will have to spend that kind of money again the likes of Hart, Richards, Kompany, Silva, Balotelli and Ageuro could form the back bone of their side for years. You but quality and you tend to but once.

For me City are very likely to get to a situation where the Champions League becomes an annual money spinner and their squad only needs a little tinkering every season and not expensive wholesale changes.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

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 #627 on: February 23, 2012, 05:28:12 pm »
I think a bit of context is needed City may of lost £195m but they spent £155m on players. They are in a phase where they are playing catch up and are investing heavily in players. It is very unlikely that they will have to spend that kind of money again the likes of Hart, Richards, Kompany, Silva, Balotelli and Ageuro could form the back bone of their side for years. You but quality and you tend to but once.

For me City are very likely to get to a situation where the Champions League becomes an annual money spinner and their squad only needs a little tinkering every season and not expensive wholesale changes.
Yes but less be clear here. They made a 195m loss on 150m of revenues. The 155m they spent on players is amortized over the life of the contract - typically 5 years. So you buy quality and pay for it over 5 years.

Now I am sure that the CL will be a money spinner but it wont be more than 40m against losses of 195m. There are some big commercial revenues to come through so losses should halve to around 90m this year which is equivalent to the turnover of the 7th largest club in the League. Absolutely no way that City can meet FFP but it does seem more efficient than Chelsea. Still the penalty for missing FFP will be a fine - so I guess they wont care.

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 #628 on: February 23, 2012, 05:37:00 pm »
BTW here is a website with a lot of John Henry quotes. It is financial but is work his kind of cool in that it shows we are illogical.

http://trendroom.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/trend-following-quotes/

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,571
  • JFT 97
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #629 on: February 23, 2012, 05:52:52 pm »
Yes but less be clear here. They made a 195m loss on 150m of revenues. The 155m they spent on players is amortized over the life of the contract - typically 5 years. So you buy quality and pay for it over 5 years.

Now I am sure that the CL will be a money spinner but it wont be more than 40m against losses of 195m. There are some big commercial revenues to come through so losses should halve to around 90m this year which is equivalent to the turnover of the 7th largest club in the League. Absolutely no way that City can meet FFP but it does seem more efficient than Chelsea. Still the penalty for missing FFP will be a fine - so I guess they wont care.

City Have spent in the region of £500m in the last five years that doesn't mean they have to carry on like that Chelsea are a perfect example of a Club that invested massive amounts achieved a great amount of success and then totally throttled back the spending.



Chelsea showed that it is possible to spend nothing in the transfer market and rake in cash from competing at the very top of the Premiership and the Champions League when you have already built a squad.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

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 #630 on: February 23, 2012, 06:46:55 pm »
City Have spent in the region of £500m in the last five years that doesn't mean they have to carry on like that Chelsea are a perfect example of a Club that invested massive amounts achieved a great amount of success and then totally throttled back the spending.



Chelsea showed that it is possible to spend nothing in the transfer market and rake in cash from competing at the very top of the Premiership and the Champions League when you have already built a squad.
Honestly that is the most ridiculous comment I have seen on RAWK. Chelsea have never made a profit or been cash flow positive since the day Abromavich bought it.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/02/chelsea-look-good-in-blue.html?utm_source=BP_recent

The minimum loss they have made in a year is 44m quid.

I think he has spent a total of over 700m quid. Last year they lost 68m. Chelsea have shown that you can spend spectacular amounts in the transfer market and not get a penny back. The reason being that when you spend 50m on Torres you render him worthless by paying him 180k a week. Mind you it is a funny club. It has a manager called Roman who mismanages the business every year and then writes a large cheque. But look at the player amortization relative to player profit.

And BTW in your table of transfers and re your comment about Chelsea reducing expenditures, you have missed the last two years when then net spend has been a total of 150m quid.

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/chelsea-fc/transfers/verein_631_2010.html
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 06:57:23 pm by Abrak »

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,571
  • JFT 97
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #631 on: February 23, 2012, 07:08:34 pm »
Honestly that is the most ridiculous comment I have seen on RAWK. Chelsea have never made a profit or been cash flow positive since the day Abromavich bought it.

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2012/02/chelsea-look-good-in-blue.html?utm_source=BP_recent

The minimum loss they have made in a year is 44m quid.

I think he has spent a total of over 700m quid. Last year they lost 68m. Chelsea have shown that you can spend spectacular amounts in the transfer market and not get a penny back. The reason being that when you spend 50m on Torres you render him worthless by paying him 180k a week. Mind you it is a funny club. It has a manager called Roman who mismanages the business every year and then writes a large cheque. But look at the player amortization relative to player profit.

I haven't stated that Chelsea have made a profit though have I. What I have said that is once you have built a squad of quality players then you can go a lengthy period without having to carrying on spending vast amounts on player acquisitions. What you have also failed to realise that posting losses when it has no Sporting consequence and posting losses when you do have Sporting consequences are too totally different things as City naming rights for the Stadium prove.

As for the Swiss ramble blog have you actually read it because to me it read as Chelsea without the exceptional items would of been well within the FFP rules.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Red_Rich

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,045
  • Fan since Liverpool 5 Stoke 3 in 1976
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #632 on: February 23, 2012, 07:21:46 pm »
Been hearing on a grapevine that the owners are definitely sanctioning big bids for at least 2 class A players in the summer, one of which is believed to be a certain top drawer South American player currently plying his trade in Southern Italy.  Apparently they now feel that obtaining hand-picked marquee signings is the next stage for us after last year's general squad overhaul, as long as the deal makes sense of course, ie age, wages etc (exactly the issues this thread is dealing with) Don't shoot the messenger please.  I'm not normally privvy to any info like this but there's a first time for everthing, I suppose.
United used to win titles on easy street, time for us to take over that real estate

Online farawayred

  • Whizz For Atomms. Nucular boffin. A Mars A Day Helps Him Work, Rest And Play
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,308
  • Oh yes, I'm a believer!
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #633 on: February 23, 2012, 07:24:10 pm »
Been hearing on a grapevine that the owners are definitely sanctioning big bids for at least 2 class A players in the summer, one of which is believed to be a certain top drawer South American player currently plying his trade in Southern Italy.  Apparently they now feel that obtaining hand-picked marquee signings is the next stage for us after last year's general squad overhaul, as long as the deal makes sense of course, ie age, wages etc (exactly the issues this thread is dealing with) Don't shoot the messenger please.  I'm not normally privvy to any info like this but there's a first time for everthing, I suppose.
Anything to do with Raffael Caetano of Herta? (rumors from unreliable sources so far, I'm afraid...)
Cruyff: "Victory is not enough, there also needs to be beautiful football."

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 #634 on: February 23, 2012, 07:33:59 pm »
I haven't stated that Chelsea have made a profit though have I. What I have said that is once you have built a squad of quality players then you can go a lengthy period without having to carrying on spending vast amounts on player acquisitions. What you have also failed to realise that posting losses when it has no Sporting consequence and posting losses when you do have Sporting consequences are too totally different things as City naming rights for the Stadium prove.

As for the Swiss ramble blog have you actually read it because to me it read as Chelsea without the exceptional items would of been well within the FFP rules.
You did mention 'raking in the cash' when they have never been cash flow positive. Also spending 300m and then not spending much for 3 years before spending another 150m isnt exactly building a squad and going a lengthy period. No team has lost half as much as Chelsea on players over the last 6 years.

Yes I did read it. I do think the costs of sacking managers should not be an exceptional item at Chelsea as they do it every year. Chelsea's problem is not the 68m they lost last year but the future costs of rebuilding their team when the likes of Terry, Lampard, Cole, Drogba go. Their amortization charge will shoot through the roof if they say spend 150m replacing their ageing squad.

Offline Dmode101

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
  • Being a reds fan is like match day, everyday.
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #635 on: February 23, 2012, 07:37:33 pm »
Been hearing on a grapevine that the owners are definitely sanctioning big bids for at least 2 class A players in the summer, one of which is believed to be a certain top drawer South American player currently plying his trade in Southern Italy.  Apparently they now feel that obtaining hand-picked marquee signings is the next stage for us after last year's general squad overhaul, as long as the deal makes sense of course, ie age, wages etc (exactly the issues this thread is dealing with) Don't shoot the messenger please.  I'm not normally privvy to any info like this but there's a first time for everthing, I suppose.

south italy = napoli?

if its winger = lavezzi?!!
if its striker = cavani?!!

red_rich pls dont give false hope! or i will burn the grapevine!  :P
If you judge people for what they are not who they are, you will make genuine friends rather than friends of circumstance.

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 #636 on: February 23, 2012, 07:45:49 pm »
Been hearing on a grapevine that the owners are definitely sanctioning big bids for at least 2 class A players in the summer, one of which is believed to be a certain top drawer South American player currently plying his trade in Southern Italy.  Apparently they now feel that obtaining hand-picked marquee signings is the next stage for us after last year's general squad overhaul, as long as the deal makes sense of course, ie age, wages etc (exactly the issues this thread is dealing with) Don't shoot the messenger please.  I'm not normally privvy to any info like this but there's a first time for everthing, I suppose.
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.

Offline Red_Rich

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,045
  • Fan since Liverpool 5 Stoke 3 in 1976
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #637 on: February 23, 2012, 07:49:47 pm »
south italy = napoli?

if its winger = lavezzi?!!
if its striker = cavani?!!

red_rich pls dont give false hope! or i will burn the grapevine!  :P

You can put 2+2 together and get the right answer.  Make up your own suspects but I'm saying no more on this as I don't want to set myself up for a flaming, so I'm commenting no further on people's guesses. 
United used to win titles on easy street, time for us to take over that real estate

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,571
  • JFT 97
Re: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy
« Reply #638 on: February 23, 2012, 07:51:15 pm »
You did mention 'raking in the cash' when they have never been cash flow positive. Also spending 300m and then not spending much for 3 years before spending another 150m isnt exactly building a squad and going a lengthy period. No team has lost half as much as Chelsea on players over the last 6 years.

All fair points but you must remember that just because Chelsea up to now haven't bothered to maximise their income and to reduce their outgoings doesn't mean that will continue. One of Chelsea's biggest problems is that they simply haven't even tried to market the Club properly because they have had carte blanche to spend Roman's millions.

Yes I did read it. I do think the costs of sacking managers should not be an exceptional item at Chelsea as they do it every year. Chelsea's problem is not the 68m they lost last year but the future costs of rebuilding their team when the likes of Terry, Lampard, Cole, Drogba go. Their amortization charge will shoot through the roof if they say spend 150m replacing their ageing squad.

I think AVB is intended to be a long term manager and as for the players you mentioned aren't Cahil, Mata and Sturridge meant to be the successors to Terry, Lampard and Drogba.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

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 #639 on: February 23, 2012, 08:12:23 pm »
All fair points but you must remember that just because Chelsea up to now haven't bothered to maximise their income and to reduce their outgoings doesn't mean that will continue. One of Chelsea's biggest problems is that they simply haven't even tried to market the Club properly because they have had carte blanche to spend Roman's millions.

I think AVB is intended to be a long term manager and as for the players you mentioned aren't Cahil, Mata and Sturridge meant to be the successors to Terry, Lampard and Drogba.
There biggest problem is that they are totally inefficient. They have a wage bill 50% higher than ours and we are pretty hopeless on that front. Their commercial income is 20% less than ours so I dont see much room for increase. They can certainly cut costs and that is what we want to happen. Re Mata Sturridge and Cahill, you could be right but if their existing players have already been replaced within the squad they are not going to get much better. So yes they can meet FFP probably by cutting costs especially as their players retire. If they want to get back to the top of the League then Roman is going to have to finance a significant number of new players which will increase losses. So in theory they are screwed either way. If I was to make a guess I think Roman will cut costs and move the business towards profits and not finance a huge new round of acquisitions. His business plan was to spend the most and win while generating losses (if you call that a business plan). City have clearly stolen that plan from him in that they are prepared to spend more and lose more. So I would doubt that Abromavich wants to continue losing huge amounts of money and losing on the pitch.