Topic: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy

[drpepe]

The way Man City have adjusted things and arranged all those long term deals with, umm themselves in the Emerati suggest they do take FFP seriously. I reckon the big clubs will all play ball with FFP eventually, in the long term it is there interest: the bigger your fanbase and potential revenue the bigger your advantage over smaller teams; nothing will ever change there.

The sides who are well and truly fucked in terms of their approach are Real Madrid - is this the end of the £60 million transfer?


Re: Carroll / Aguero: it has been well said time and time again, a) Aguero is on MASSIVE wages b) his signing on fee would be HUGE c) how do you know he would have joined us at this point in time


The comparison to Andy Carroll because of similar sounding transfer fees just doesn't hold water.

and sorry for being facetious but that's not the only similarity between carroll and aguero that doesn't hold water ...   

[Abrak]

Under FFP Clubs most certainly do not have to break even they are allowed to make losses and a whole host of things are exempt from FFP things like Stadium funding for instance. The biggest problem though is that it is far from certain that Clubs will take the blindest bit of notice of FFP. If that happens then there isn't going to be a trend towards Clubs making profits.

Henry himself has admitted that he doubts Clubs will take notice of FFP if that happens where does that leave Henry's we don't do deficit spending mantra.

To be honest when you say 'there isnt going to be a trend towards clubs making profits' you should at least realize that only 5 clubs in the premiership made more revenues than City lost in money last year and only one club had more equity. So a 'trend' towards them becoming less loss making' is not hugely heroic. The average club last year lost 25m quid on 60m quid of revenues. As there is absolutely no possibility that those losses can be repaid how much further do you wish to assume the trend to losses. Fayed has 200m of losses outstanding on Fulham that will never be repaid, the poor guy at Bolton has 100m. Lerner has invested in 300m in Aston Villa that will never get returned. So how much less profitable do you want to assume the business will become? Abromavich is losing 70m a year and winning absolutely nothing. And he wont win anything cos City are happy to lose more. So how much more a year do you assume that Abromavich is prepared to lose? Theoretically he isnt prepared to lose more money a year to win absolutely nothing.

Look I just dont think it is a massively heroic assumption to assume that clubs will trend towards profits. It would tend to take a hell of a lot money, assumption and guts to assume the trend towards losses would continue.

Look I promise you City's intention is not to bankrupt every club in the premiership (even if that is your conspiracy theory). There is actually no point in winning unless there is someone to win against. And even if you find this a little difficult to understand please accept that when you are losing 500m  a year a trend to profitabilty is not really a big assumption while a trend to increasing losses is pretty heroic.

[Abrak]

If it was Henry who was responsible for Carroll, I wish he would have experimented with his theories by signing an Aguero instead...

And sorry I meant that Henry wasnt responsible for the specific individual but the price.

Unfortunately Aguero was fishing on the day.

[Eeyore]

Well, Henry himself said that without FFP the club that spends the most wins which essentially makes it a business which is a 'race to create losses.'

Theoretically Henry has nothing against 'deficit spending'. In act while the business is 'creating value' it makes sense to 'deficit spend'. While if the business is destroying value it makes sense to pay down debt or pay out dividends.

Actually you do not need the business to be profitable or cash flow positive to create value. It is Henry's 'hope'  that the money he has invested in the squad has created value in the business by making us a better team. So he will happily deficit spend while it is value creative. And then create value through spending to finance the new stadium etc. That is the business plan. A new stadium creates huge value for him as an owner while creating value for everyone as a club.

Look I hope you think I am not being the naive one here. He intends to get you to pay for the new stadium through ticket receipts and paying down its financing while he knows he will be the ultimate owner at the end of the day. But that is just the way it works.

The problem is Henry has expressly stated that we will not be deficit spending.

 
    David Conn
    guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 February 2011 17.31 GMT
    Article history

John W Henry
John W Henry believes clubs such as Chelsea may be planning to 'evade' Uefa's financial fair-play rules. Photograph: Michael Regan/Getty Images

Liverpool's American owner, John Henry, has criticised Chelsea for their extravagant transfer window spending, questioning the commitment of Roman Abramovich's club to Uefa's financial fair-play rules. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Henry suggested Chelsea may be planning to "evade" the rules and called on the governing body to ensure they are strictly followed by all clubs. The fair-play rules, which require clubs to spend only the income they make and not rely on subsidies from owners, come into effect from next season to 2014.

"I was surprised Monday morning to receive an offer [from Chelsea for Fernando Torres] in that amount [£50m] at the same time they were announcing such large losses [£71m for 2009-10]," Henry said. "The big question is just how effective the financial fair-play rules are going to be. Perhaps some clubs support the concept in order to limit the spending of other clubs, while implementing activities specifically designed to evade the rules they publicly support. We can only hope that Uefa has the ability and determination to enforce what they have proposed."

Chelsea have insisted since signing Torres and David Luiz that they firmly intend to comply with financial fair play and that the £71m outlay was within overall progress towards cutting costs.

Henry, setting out his thoughts on Liverpool's direction almost four months since his Fenway Sports Group bought the club by paying off the £200m debts Tom Hicks's and George Gillett's "leveraged" takeover had loaded on to Liverpool, said he is committed to the club living within its income. "We've always spent money we've generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool," he said, referring to the group's ownership of the Boston Red Sox baseball team. "It's up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that."

That commitment to sound financial management was followed, not breached, Henry asserted, in the £35m Liverpool paid Newcastle United for Andy Carroll, a fee that astonished English football. Henry said the £35m made financial sense because Liverpool were only paying to Newcastle what they were to receive from Chelsea by selling Torres, whom they allowed to leave because he had become too evidently unhappy at Anfield.

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

Saying Kenny Dalglish has "exceeded our expectations" as the club's caretaker manager, Henry explained that Liverpool retain ambitions to qualify for European competition this season, so insisted they had to sign a replacement striker, preferably Carroll, if Torres was to go. "We weren't going to write off Champions League and Europa League for the sake of someone's happiness," Henry said of Torres. "The striker position had to be filled, by someone who made sense for the long term. With about 24 hours remaining, the possibility of Andy, who was No1 on our list of possibilities for the summer, emerged."

Henry explained how Carroll, even at £35m, fits into FSG's philosophy, which famously learns from the strategy honed by Billy Beane, the general manager at baseball's Oakland Athletics. As described in the book Moneyball, by Michael Lewis, players are assessed from performance statistics, not solely by scouts rating how good they look. Henry, however, said this did not mean they were not prepared to spend big fees on the right players, as the group has done when turning the Red Sox into a World Series-winning baseball team again.

"The Moneyball approach is about poor decision-making in baseball, based on anecdotal evidence [about players' qualities] as opposed to hard, statistical evidence. If the Red Sox are a Moneyball team it has to be noted that we are second in spending over the last decade within Major League Baseball. We have been successful through spending and through securing and developing young players."

That, he said, will be Liverpool's two-pronged approach to rebuilding the squad, which will be financed only out of its income; he and his fellow investors in Fenway will not be pouring cash in. "We intend to get younger, deeper and play positive football. Adding two top players [Carroll and Suárez] who have just turned 22 and 24 is a good first step."

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

FSG is, Henry confirmed, studying the possibility of expanding Anfield rather than building the long-mooted new stadium on Stanley Park, a plan which he criticised. "It's not a coincidence that the last two ownership groups could not get a new stadium built," he argued pointedly. "What they proposed or hoped for just didn't make any economic sense or they would have been built. A lot of time and effort is being put into study and creatively looking at all options."

With his first, extraordinary, transfer window done, in which Liverpool managed to part with English football's most astonishing fee ever while spending nothing overall, Henry argued the new American owners' strategy, to refashion Liverpool as a major club, is on course. "Our goal in Liverpool is to create the kind of stability that the Red Sox enjoy," he said. "We are committed to building for the long term."

[Eeyore]

To be honest when you say 'there isnt going to be a trend towards clubs making profits' you should at least realize that only 5 clubs in the premiership made more revenues than City lost in money last year and only one club had more equity. So a 'trend' towards them becoming less loss making' is not hugely heroic. The average club last year lost 25m quid on 60m quid of revenues. As there is absolutely no possibility that those losses can be repaid how much further do you wish to assume the trend to losses. Fayed has 200m of losses outstanding on Fulham that will never be repaid, the poor guy at Bolton has 100m. Lerner has invested in 300m in Aston Villa that will never get returned. So how much less profitable do you want to assume the business will become? Abromavich is losing 70m a year and winning absolutely nothing. And he wont win anything cos City are happy to lose more. So how much more a year do you assume that Abromavich is prepared to lose? Theoretically he isnt prepared to lose more money a year to win absolutely nothing.

Look I just dont think it is a massively heroic assumption to assume that clubs will trend towards profits. It would tend to take a hell of a lot money, assumption and guts to assume the trend towards losses would continue.

Look I promise you City's intention is not to bankrupt every club in the premiership (even if that is your conspiracy theory). There is actually no point in winning unless there is someone to win against. And even if you find this a little difficult to understand please accept that when you are losing 500m  a year a trend to profitabilty is not really a big assumption while a trend to increasing losses is pretty heroic.

For all your good financial sense you are missing the elephant in the room for a hundred years Football has been bankrolled by a variety of sources from the local businessman who wanted the kudos, through massive companies funding Clubs to in some cases regional governments funding Clubs. It is nothing knew there have always been people who have thrown financial sense out of the window in the pursuit of glory.

There is an old saying the way to make a small fortune from Football is to start off with a large one. To you what Abramovich an Mansoor is doing may seem like absolute lunacy but it has always gone on and despite Henry's statistical genius and Platini wish for a level playing field through FFP it is likely to stay that way.

That is the backdrop whether you and Henry like it or not there is no draft or other forms of compensation to compensate other franchises Football is a dog eat dog business where some people will always find a way around regulations.

In 1982 Doug Ellis became Chairman of Aston Villa for the second time they were reigning European Champions had probably the best ground in the Country and had won 7 League titles, 7 Fa Cups and a European Cup. Ellis was a cautious man who didn't do deficit spending and who believed that if Villa lived within their means then the other Club's would bankrupt themselves and Villa would be in the wings waiting to take over. He was basically relying on the fact that other Clubs would not be able to sustain their levels of spending.

At that time Man United had won 7 League titles, 4 Fa Cups and a European Cup. Instead of standing still and waiting for others to fail embraced the challenge raised money through the City redeveloped their Ground again and again and invested heavily in their playing squad. They didn't wait for the money to be in the coffers they continually borrowed money and spent money safe in the knowledge that by being successful on the pitch they would grow off the pitch and the initial deficit would pay for itself time and time again. they saw the potential of a successful Manchester United and went out and realised those dreams.

Whilst conservative live within your mean Villa have failed to add to those 7 League titles, 7 FA Cups and a European Cup United have won another 12 League titles, another 7 Fa Cups and another 2 European Cups. If that isn't a case for making a temporary deficit spend to improve your ground capacity, to improve your playing squad and to improve your results on and off the pitch then I don't know what is.

No one is asking FSG and Henry to adopt the financial lunacy of City or Chelsea but to learn the lessons of Villa and United and accept short term pain in the bottom line in exchange for a simply massive pay off further down the line. We need to stop with this we will be in good shape if everyone else goes bust notion and look to build the Club and it's brand.

[johnny74]

Are there really that many people who would prefer us to have Babel and Torres instead of Suarez and Carroll? Because that, in the end, is the end position of the deals we did then.

This^^^

[lionel_messias]

<--AI 555

This will always be the case. I believe that in the future though the difference is that teams will not be able to have players like Adebayor and Tevez lying around and not playing.

Essentially there is a middle ground somewhere between what Chelsea have been doing and somewhere way above what Arsenal have been doing in the transfer market. For us I reckon that means a net spend of around £30 - 40 million this summer bringing in a further 2 or 3 top quality players to go with the good players we have and one or two youngsters like Shelvey or Sterling coming into the squad.

[liverpooll]

Not sure about that. Henderson's been pretty effective this year, Meireles hasn't done much at all. He may have got more game time with us, he may have gone into a sulk because we'd ignored his last minute transfer request, no way of knowing. But Meireles is 30 next year, he'll be starting to wind down already in terms of fitness and pace while Henderson shouldn't peak for another four-five years at least. By the time Henderson is Meireles' age, there's no telling how good he could be. All the signs are that he'll be very good indeed.

Not really, Henderson has not been doing the job he was brought for, which is assists and goals. He has a decent player at best but stretchingTh it if we believe he has been a good player. Meireles of course contributed more to our season as seen from last year or even this year. Meireles as a Liverpool player has more assists than Downing this premier league season . Now that is a sad fact but that's another story. The point is getting Henderson was not a signing which we really needed and it was more about following our English transfer policy.

Carroll has 8 goals in 40 for Liverpool. Torres has 5 in 47 for Chelsea. Carroll is getting a goal every five games, Torres is nearer one in 10.

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

And Downing has been a poor signing and I am pretty sure there will be many people agreeing on that.

[megabomberman]

Cracking post Al, very rarely does a poster opposing the viewpoint of Abrak cause me to stop and really make me consider what they are saying and you make a very good point here.

Still a few points that slightly negate your post here.

- Villa frankly don't deserve to be anywhere else other than where they are right now.
Eventhough Douggie Ellis was as tight as a nun's arse they didn't do anything at any level that could be considered in anyway ambitious in the past 2 decades.

- United's rise in unison with the emergence of the premier league has a lot to do with their current status.

- Liverpool aren't some shite club like Blackburn, Chelsea and City. We can generate huge income to make us a self sustaining monster like United have become, while funding a massively expensive squad.

[Abrak]

For all your good financial sense you are missing the elephant in the room for a hundred years Football has been bankrolled by a variety of sources from the local businessman who wanted the kudos, through massive companies funding Clubs to in some cases regional governments funding Clubs. It is nothing knew there have always been people who have thrown financial sense out of the window in the pursuit of glory.

There is an old saying the way to make a small fortune from Football is to start off with a large one. To you what Abramovich an Mansoor is doing may seem like absolute lunacy but it has always gone on and despite Henry's statistical genius and Platini wish for a level playing field through FFP it is likely to stay that way.

That is the backdrop whether you and Henry like it or not there is no draft or other forms of compensation to compensate other franchises Football is a dog eat dog business where some people will always find a way around regulations.

In 1982 Doug Ellis became Chairman of Aston Villa for the second time they were reigning European Champions had probably the best ground in the Country and had won 7 League titles, 7 Fa Cups and a European Cup. Ellis was a cautious man who didn't do deficit spending and who believed that if Villa lived within their means then the other Club's would bankrupt themselves and Villa would be in the wings waiting to take over. He was basically relying on the fact that other Clubs would not be able to sustain their levels of spending.

At that time Man United had won 7 League titles, 4 Fa Cups and a European Cup. Instead of standing still and waiting for others to fail embraced the challenge raised money through the City redeveloped their Ground again and again and invested heavily in their playing squad. They didn't wait for the money to be in the coffers they continually borrowed money and spent money safe in the knowledge that by being successful on the pitch they would grow off the pitch and the initial deficit would pay for itself time and time again. they saw the potential of a successful Manchester United and went out and realised those dreams.

Whilst conservative live within your mean Villa have failed to add to those 7 League titles, 7 FA Cups and a European Cup United have won another 12 League titles, another 7 Fa Cups and another 2 European Cups. If that isn't a case for making a temporary deficit spend to improve your ground capacity, to improve your playing squad and to improve your results on and off the pitch then I don't know what is.

No one is asking FSG and Henry to adopt the financial lunacy of City or Chelsea but to learn the lessons of Villa and United and accept short term pain in the bottom line in exchange for a simply massive pay off further down the line. We need to stop with this we will be in good shape if everyone else goes bust notion and look to build the Club and it's brand.

Some good points. I think the one important change that FSG are hoping to see out of FFP is that new owners will not in the future be allowed to come in and create 'mega-clubs' from 'minnows'. This is important because even in a relatively poor industry the mega-clubs are generally good businesses. But if new entrants come in and take their place it makes these 'rich' clubs less rich.

Actually behind Liverpool is a very good business. We get paid 25m a year by someone to make our kit. 20m a year for someone to put their name on it. That is 45m a year for doing nothing that other clubs dont have. We only need to look at Spurs whose shareholders have not invested a penny and whose revenues are still less than ours when they have CL and we do not, to see what can be achieved in a self financing way. In other words, we do have 40m more Spurs each year to run the business, so we should really be able to do better than them. There is no doubt that in the past and for 20 years we have been very badly run financially. That is changing and that has to change for us to grow.

As for 'deficit financing'. My personal view is that Liverpool needs money invested in it both in terms of the squad and a new stadium. At the very least this would accelerate what we could achieve with our own resources and we really cant wait around forever allowing others to over take us to build the business. I also think it makes financial sense. Building a new stadium and investing in the squad is not a request for a huge subsidy because I think the club will generate the revenues to justify that investment. In fact I think there is a risk that if we dont start recreating some of the success we have had in the past in the near future part of our global support base will gradually start eroding out of a disappoint in the lack of our success. Now that sounds very 'plastic' so who cares? Well my point is, especially from the owners perspective, if you have built up a huge global following, it is a bit of a waste to not take advantage of it and allow it to slip away.

So I know our owners say they wont 'deficit finance' us but I hope they find a way of putting some new money into the business because I think it needs it and it justifies it. If FSG are so clever as they think they are that they can run this business so much better that it can grow self-sufficiently, then they should realize they are creating a business that can justify having some investment pushed into it, to accelerate that process.

[DanA]

Is Manchester United really the model we want to be following? I think they are procariously placed financially and it won't take a lot for it to fall apart. They are carrying too much debt just as we were and have been well run but fortunate with the sale of Ronaldo, ongoing success and a stable management. If some of that stops working then they could be in really trouble. The debt they are carrying is no doubt weighing heavily around there neck.

[Abrak]

By the way irrespective of how much the squad has improved relative to how much has been spent. Two important aspects of the squad have been addressed.

1) We now have the squad with about the youngest average age in the League. Meaning that its cost of replacement will be less.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Premier_League_Squad_Ages.html

2) Our buy British policy which is an expensive way to buy performance was simply a matter of necessity. Last season we had pretty much the highest percentage of foreign players in our squad while new rules insist on a decent percentage of 'home grown' players. Furthermore, our few English players like Carragher and Gerrard were approaching the end of their careers. While others were useless - Cole/Konchesky. As you can see we had no choice but to buy British.

http://www.tottenhamhotspurs.tv/forum/players-lounge/9990-foreign-players-premier-league.html

[DanA]

By the way irrespective of how much the squad has improved relative to how much has been spent. Two important aspects of the squad have been addressed.

1) We now have the squad with about the youngest average age in the League. Meaning that its cost of replacement will be less.

http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Premier_League_Squad_Ages.html

2) Our buy British policy which is an expensive way to buy performance was simply a matter of necessity. Last season we had pretty much the highest percentage of foreign players in our squad while new rules insist on a decent percentage of 'home grown' players. Furthermore, our few English players like Carragher and Gerrard were approaching the end of their careers. While others were useless - Cole/Konchesky. As you can see we had no choice but to buy British.

http://www.tottenhamhotspurs.tv/forum/players-lounge/9990-foreign-players-premier-league.html

I wonder if it was the problem you make it out to be. We need 8 HG players if we want a squad of 25 players but then why do we need 25 players? We already had Spearing, Carragher, Johnson, Gerrard & Kelly which allows a squad of 22 and I don't see the need for anymore than 2 players in each position, particularly with no european football.  I personally don't think that rule holds much relevance but with Downing, Bellamy, Henderson & Carroll added to the mix combined with the potential academy prospects elevating (Shelvey, Sterling, Wisdom, Flannagan & Robinson) it's certainly not going to be a factor in the forseeable future.

[Sangria]

2) Our buy British policy which is an expensive way to buy performance was simply a matter of necessity. Last season we had pretty much the highest percentage of foreign players in our squad while new rules insist on a decent percentage of 'home grown' players. Furthermore, our few English players like Carragher and Gerrard were approaching the end of their careers. While others were useless - Cole/Konchesky. As you can see we had no choice but to buy British.

http://www.tottenhamhotspurs.tv/forum/players-lounge/9990-foreign-players-premier-league.html

PL squad of 25 O-21 players, of which 8 spots are reserved for homegrowns. If you can form a squad with these numbers, then there is no forcing anyone to buy British or otherwise. Also, homegrown refers to where the players were registered during their formative years, hence someone like Charlie Adam is a foreign player (Rangers, Scottish FA), while someone like Emiliano Insua is a homegrown player (Liverpool, English FA). If we enter UEFA-run competitions, there is a further distinction between the homegrowns, with 4 of those spots reserved for club-trained. In that case, the likes of Insua counts as club-trained (Liverpool), but someone like Downing would only be association-trained (English clubs other than Liverpool).

[DanA]

No please be exact here. You pay money for future returns. Historic returns are irrelevant. I mean how much do people now think Torres is worth on 150k a week at 28 with a 5 year contract. And seriously when you are getting much above zero you are being pretty heroically optimistic. And we did sell him for 50m 15 months ago.

So assume a hugely deep hole and a massively large ladder and I just dont think you are going to get anywhere.

Historic perfomance is very relevant when a part of what that player brings is their brand name. David Beckham was the example I used but if you buy one of the worlds highest shirt sellers (Torres) then it's going to come at a premium above that which is his future performance.

How can you not even acknowledge that? It is only really relevant for a handful of players but Torres was one of them.

[Abrak]

I wonder if it was the problem you make it out to be. We need 8 HG players if we want a squad of 25 players but then why do we need 25 players? We already had Spearing, Carragher, Johnson, Gerrard & Kelly which allows a squad of 22 and I don't see the need for anymore than 2 players in each position, particularly with no european football.  I personally don't think that rule holds much relevance but with Downing, Bellamy, Henderson & Carroll added to the mix combined with the potential academy prospects elevating (Shelvey, Sterling, Wisdom, Flannagan & Robinson) it's certainly not going to be a factor in the forseeable future.

You dont obviously need any home grown players so that you can win the league with 17 players. However, a team with 25 players is more likely to win it than a team with 24.

The second point is this. Given 8 home grown players per team you need 160 in the Premiership. There is no point in having a home grown player in the squad who is so useless that he will never play. I would guess that any home grown player worse than 50th in the England would never get a game at Liverpool. So that places an extra premium on say English players that are in the England team or around the squad.

As you rightly say you can challenge with 22 players but you are less likely to win than with 25. And the marginal benefit of the extra 3 is very much more than the average.

You can also rely on the academy but unless it produces there is a significant cost if it doesnt produce.

Essentially if the premium on home grown players is high enough and your capital is limited, then you can be better off buying 17 foreign players at much better value. However if you look at the work of say Paul Tomkins the premium on English players is not particular high at the moment. And if you have no budget constraint it must be better to have your 8 home grown players than a squad without them.

Your other point is well taken. Which is that the acquisition of Henderson, Carroll, Bellamy and Downing addresses this problem. So while there might have been a good reason to buy them because they are English there is no reason to continue the policy.

[JJ Red]

Interesting reading the posts in this thread from people who know alot more than me.

I must say that in the summer i was slightly suprised (and a bit upset )that FSG didn't push the boat out (even if it was only once) and move for a few top top quality players. I believed that this was there final chance before FFP rules really kicked in, and given what City, United and Chelsea were spending in the summer i was unsure as to how they expected us to make the top 4. All 3 clubs mentioned already had far better squads than us and again went and spent vast amounts on top players.

Unfortunately i wasn't the least bit suprised by the Man City/Emirates deal. It stunk to high heaven but was not illegal and something along those lines for City was always expected to allow Mansour to keep stockpiling the best talent in the world. It begs the question that, if this type of deal for someone like City was obvious to me (not the brightest person) surely Henry and Werner must have known that they would try something like this. Did they really expect Mansour to just say "ok, fair enough, now we can only spend £30m", and consequently let his new plaything stagnate while Utd, Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to dominate European football. Mansour spends that money because, like Abramovich, he wants to create the ultimate team that will dominate in europe and make a name for themselves.

I'm left to wonder, given the very hit but mostly miss nature of Commoli/Kenny's transfer dealings, how much they will allow us to spend in the summer.

BTW, does anyone have our final net spend for last summer? At a guess i would say that with the Meireles sale it came to about £36m???

[Abrak]

Historic perfomance is very relevant when a part of what that player brings is their brand name. David Beckham was the example I used but if you buy one of the worlds highest shirt sellers (Torres) then it's going to come at a premium above that which is his future performance.

How can you not even acknowledge that? It is only really relevant for a handful of players but Torres was one of them.

I do totally acknowledge that. David Beckham future performance on the pitch may not be great but he may sell a lot of shirts. But what you pay him is not for the number of shirts he sold in the past but the number of shirts you expect him to sell in the future.

[DanA]

You dont obviously need any home grown players so that you can win the league with 17 players. However, a team with 25 players is more likely to win it than a team with 24.

The second point is this. Given 8 home grown players per team you need 160 in the Premiership. There is no point in having a home grown player in the squad who is so useless that he will never play. I would guess that any home grown player worse than 50th in the England would never get a game at Liverpool. So that places an extra premium on say English players that are in the England team or around the squad.

As you rightly say you can challenge with 22 players but you are less likely to win than with 25. And the marginal benefit of the extra 3 is very much more than the average.

You can also rely on the academy but unless it produces there is a significant cost if it doesnt produce.

Essentially if the premium on home grown players is high enough and your capital is limited, then you can be better off buying 17 foreign players at much better value. However if you look at the work of say Paul Tomkins the premium on English players is not particular high at the moment. And if you have no budget constraint it must be better to have your 8 home grown players than a squad without them.

Your other point is well taken. Which is that the acquisition of Henderson, Carroll, Bellamy and Downing addresses this problem. So while there might have been a good reason to buy them because they are English there is no reason to continue the policy.

Disagree.

Barcelona has a squad of 21 players which totally debunks the notion that you need 25 players. And that includes players like Alacantara who at 20 y/o wouldn't even need to be registered.

[DanA]

I do totally acknowledge that. David Beckham future performance on the pitch may not be great but he may sell a lot of shirts. But what you pay him is not for the number of shirts he sold in the past but the number of shirts you expect him to sell in the future.

And guess what. His PAST performances on the pitch are very relevant to how many shirts he will sell in the future. You still don't see a link?  Apparently Christano Ronaldo made what Real Madrid bought him for in shirt sales in his first month at the club. Now I believe that is an exaggeration but when another big shirt seller moves (Torres) you've got to factor in a bit more than just his on pitch performance.
 

[Abrak]

Interesting reading the posts in this thread from people who know alot more than me.

I must say that in the summer i was slightly suprised (and a bit upset )that FSG didn't push the boat out (even if it was only once) and move for a few top top quality players. I believed that this was there final chance before FFP rules really kicked in, and given what City, United and Chelsea were spending in the summer i was unsure as to how they expected us to make the top 4. All 3 clubs mentioned already had far better squads than us and again went and spent vast amounts on top players.

Unfortunately i wasn't the least bit suprised by the Man City/Emirates deal. It stunk to high heaven but was not illegal and something along those lines for City was always expected to allow Mansour to keep stockpiling the best talent in the world. It begs the question that, if this type of deal for someone like City was obvious to me (not the brightest person) surely Henry and Werner must have known that they would try something like this. Did they really expect Mansour to just say "ok, fair enough, now we can only spend £30m", and consequently let his new plaything stagnate while Utd, Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to dominate European football. Mansour spends that money because, like Abramovich, he wants to create the ultimate team that will dominate in europe and make a name for themselves.

I'm left to wonder, given the very hit but mostly miss nature of Commoli/Kenny's transfer dealings, how much they will allow us to spend in the summer.

BTW, does anyone have our final net spend for last summer? At a guess i would say that with the Meireles sale it came to about £36m???

Look I dont really know why Henry bought Liverpool. I know why why Mansour bought City because he knew he has more money than anyone else. I suspect that Henry bought Liverpool because he thinks he is smarter than anyone else. Beating 100,000 traders in corn futures must get boring after a while. Still Mansour knows he has more money while Henry just thinks he is smarter.

My guess though for Liverpool is that Henry likes the maturity mismatch in the business. In other words he has a 5 year plan rather than an 18 month one. It is why Liverpool likes Henderson and is happy to sell Torres. To be honest I am far more interested about what we can achieve in 5 years than next year. And if he wins us the Premiership in 5 years time I will be impressed.

Do I think he will do it? No. But I do think he will have a few surprises up his sleeves. Yes. There are a couple of obvious ones. Like he will leverage his equity by selling 25% of the business to Coke for 200m to finance the new stadium. He is playing an incredibly stupid game but he wouldnt do it if thought he might lose.

Or else they will sell within a year.

[Abrak]

And guess what. His PAST performances on the pitch are very relevant to how many shirts he will sell in the future. You still don't see a link?  Apparently Christano Ronaldo made what Real Madrid bought him for in shirt sales in his first month at the club.Now I believe that is an exaggeration but when another big shirt seller moves (Torres) you've got to factor in a bit more than just his on pitch performance.

DanA dont get involved in an incredibly stupid argument. Of course they are. Far more relevant than his goals. How else are you going to estimate his future sales of shirts if you dont base it largely on the historic sales of shirts. But the value is the net present value of his future sales. You are getting all statistical on me. Which is that the only indication of future value that is tangible is historic statistics (unless you wish to predict the future). I do know all this. I do know that if I dont know historic statistics I am merely a fortune teller.

So please dont tell me what is relevant to future performance when my point is that value is the NPV of future performance. And unless you think you are a fortune teller the only way you can derive future performance is from historic statistics.

Look also dont bullshit a bullshitter.' Apparently Christano Ronaldo made what Real Madrid bought him for in shirt sales in his first month at the club.'  Real Madrid sells less retail in one year than the average of the 4800 Tesco stores. And anyway they dont make money from selling shirts. Why do you think that Warrior pays us 25m a year. (And look if Ronaldo made the most sales of shirts in the entire world in one month and every penny went to Real Madrid it still wouldnt be true - apparently green little Goblins exist but they might not.)

(Look to stop boring each other my point is that a 30 year old footballer who has averaged 30 goals a season for 10 years is actually worth less than a 23 year old footballer that has scored 30 goals a season for 3 years. Now if you want to disagree fine but it is pretty bloody obvious.)

[Abrak]

And guess what. His PAST performances on the pitch are very relevant to how many shirts he will sell in the future. You still don't see a link?  Apparently Christano Ronaldo made what Real Madrid bought him for in shirt sales in his first month at the club. Now I believe that is an exaggeration but when another big shirt seller moves (Torres) you've got to factor in a bit more than just his on pitch performance.

Ok DanA what else could you predict future performances on apart from historic performances. Obviously many people do believe they have the ability to predict the future. But assuming you cannot? So what is your point?

[DanA]

DanA dont get involved in an incredibly stupid argument. Of course they are. Far more relevant than his goals. How else are you going to estimate his future sales of shirts if you dont base it largely on the historic sales of shirts. But the value is the net present value of his future sales. You are getting all statistical on me. Which is that the only indication of future value that is tangible is historic statistics (unless you wish to predict the future). I do know all this. I do know that if I dont know historic statistics I am merely a fortune teller.

So please dont tell me what is relevant to future performance when my point is that value is the NPV of future performance. And unless you think you are a fortune teller the only way you can derive future performance is from historic statistics.

Look also dont bullshit a bullshitter.' Apparently Christano Ronaldo made what Real Madrid bought him for in shirt sales in his first month at the club.'  Real Madrid sells less retail in one year than the average of the 4800 Tesco stores. And anyway they dont make money from selling shirts. Why do you think that Warrior pays us 25m a year. (And look if Ronaldo made the most sales of shirts in the entire world in one month and every penny went to Real Madrid it still wouldnt be true - apparently green little Goblins exist but they might not.)

(Look to stop boring each other my point is that a 30 year old footballer who has averaged 30 goals a season for 10 years is actually worth less than a 23 year old footballer that has scored 30 goals a season for 3 years. Now if you want to disagree fine but it is pretty bloody obvious.)

"As for the fact you are not particularly impressed with the sale of Torres for 50m, I would tell you that a players value is the net present value of their future performance not a payment for their historic one."

I could be wrong but I honestly think the whole argument revolves around this statement. And I suspect you've changed you interpretation of it from it's initial meaning.  To me it seemed you initially made this statement without thought to shirt sales, image rights and so forth are were only factoring in on pitch performance. That probably accurate with 99% of footballers but there are exceptions. Hence the comment "David Beckham argues otherwise". All I was saying is its more than just his "performances" when you are working out his net present value. 


Granted I was grossly inaccurate about how many Ronaldo shirts sell and but it was merely highlighting a point. And that is the world elite players are more expensive due to more than just their on field performances.

http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/88/spain/2010/04/14/1878882/report-real-madrid-have-sold-over-a-million-cristiano

 

[steveeastend]

Look I dont really know why Henry bought Liverpool. I know why why Mansour bought City because he knew he has more money than anyone else. I suspect that Henry bought Liverpool because he thinks he is smarter than anyone else. Beating 100,000 traders in corn futures must get boring after a while. Still Mansour knows he has more money while Henry just thinks he is smarter.

My guess though for Liverpool is that Henry likes the maturity mismatch in the business. In other words he has a 5 year plan rather than an 18 month one. It is why Liverpool likes Henderson and is happy to sell Torres. To be honest I am far more interested about what we can achieve in 5 years than next year. And if he wins us the Premiership in 5 years time I will be impressed.

Do I think he will do it? No. But I do think he will have a few surprises up his sleeves. Yes. There are a couple of obvious ones. Like he will leverage his equity by selling 25% of the business to Coke for 200m to finance the new stadium. He is playing an incredibly stupid game but he wouldnt do it if thought he might lose.

Or else they will sell within a year.

That sounds just wonderful. 

Sorry for being cynical but you more or less say that either Henry is successful in trying out his little smart gameshow on his new toy or he will through it away.

[Abrak]

No, I am saying that I can see two clubs with infinitely more capital than me (Chelsea and City) and two clubs with much better fundamentals (ManU and Arsenal (match day revenues 60m ahead) so my natural inclination is not to compete against 4 companies for 4 places when they all have a competitive advantage over me.

So if you ask me, he is trying to achieve something that isnt achievable in the first place. But then it was his decision and he clearly thought differently. I have never really understood why someone with such a good track record would buy such an inherently disastrous business but he is very smart so my assumption that it is 'disastrous' is likely to be wrong.

[Gainsbarre]

Disagree.

Barcelona has a squad of 21 players which totally debunks the notion that you need 25 players. And that includes players like Alacantara who at 20 y/o wouldn't even need to be registered.

How many players had played for Barcelona this season? I think more than we have played for us.. Barcelona has the advantage of the best academy at world level. Barcelona B is playing at Segunda and not in La Liga just because of the rules.. it's incomparable, they have double the players Liverpool have, produced by them, ready to take any spot at the starting 11 if needed.. forget Barcelona, bad exemple..

[steveeastend]

No, I am saying that I can see two clubs with infinitely more capital than me (Chelsea and City) and two clubs with much better fundamentals (ManU and Arsenal (match day revenues 60m ahead) so my natural inclination is not to compete against 4 companies for 4 places when they all have a competitive advantage over me.

So if you ask me, he is trying to achieve something that isnt achievable in the first place. But then it was my decision and he clearly thought differently.

Exactly. And as I think that you have to be super smart in terms of pure football management, being extremely clever in who and when you sign a player for the right vision of tactics, like Rafa did, you think that he can be smarter in a more general general sports-kind-of  business approach.

I hope you are right but football is very different. Mateschitz from Red Bull was successful with almost every sport he put his hands on, just being clever, more clever than the rest. But in football he just can´t get the act together as football works different.

[Abrak]

That sounds just wonderful. 

Sorry for being cynical but you more or less say that either Henry is successful in trying out his little smart gameshow on his new toy or he will through it away.

Oh and if he does thow it away after a couple of years I would worry. He is certainly betting on making on 10x his money over the next 15 years. So if he sells he will be cutting his losses.

But without FFP he might be right. Look with without FFP we need a Country Financial Asset to back us if there has to be financial discipline we need the most efficient owner. If it is simply a maximum capital play you need an owner with the maximum capital if it is a play on the efficient use of capital you need the smartest player. So yes if the player with the most amount of capital wins it implies the 'richest and most stupid' or if it is the most efficient it implies 'the smartest'. I seriously cant expect the person who want to win the smartest game show to want to take part in the most stupid gameshow.

[Abrak]

One of my personal opinions (and someone is going to kill me for this) is that Henry bought us because we were so undervalued he basicallly couldnt miss. I mean Arsenal have a market cap of 1.1bn  enterprise value of 1.4bn and he bought Liverpool for basically a market cap of zero and an enterprise value of zero. (Although it cost him 200m so you can say it cost him 200m of both.) Actually I dont know the details but they were not far from that.

How could you go far wrong. Remember there is a stadium to build which means supporters building a massively cash generative business for you to own etc. Do you realize that Arsenal's share price has gone up 20x relative to Spurs over the last 6 years. Anyway I just guess people will see things differently.

[Eeyore]

Some good points. I think the one important change that FSG are hoping to see out of FFP is that new owners will not in the future be allowed to come in and create 'mega-clubs' from 'minnows'. This is important because even in a relatively poor industry the mega-clubs are generally good businesses. But if new entrants come in and take their place it makes these 'rich' clubs less rich.

Actually behind Liverpool is a very good business. We get paid 25m a year by someone to make our kit. 20m a year for someone to put their name on it. That is 45m a year for doing nothing that other clubs dont have. We only need to look at Spurs whose shareholders have not invested a penny and whose revenues are still less than ours when they have CL and we do not, to see what can be achieved in a self financing way. In other words, we do have 40m more Spurs each year to run the business, so we should really be able to do better than them. There is no doubt that in the past and for 20 years we have been very badly run financially. That is changing and that has to change for us to grow.

As for 'deficit financing'. My personal view is that Liverpool needs money invested in it both in terms of the squad and a new stadium. At the very least this would accelerate what we could achieve with our own resources and we really cant wait around forever allowing others to over take us to build the business. I also think it makes financial sense. Building a new stadium and investing in the squad is not a request for a huge subsidy because I think the club will generate the revenues to justify that investment. In fact I think there is a risk that if we dont start recreating some of the success we have had in the past in the near future part of our global support base will gradually start eroding out of a disappoint in the lack of our success. Now that sounds very 'plastic' so who cares? Well my point is, especially from the owners perspective, if you have built up a huge global following, it is a bit of a waste to not take advantage of it and allow it to slip away.

So I know our owners say they wont 'deficit finance' us but I hope they find a way of putting some new money into the business because I think it needs it and it justifies it. If FSG are so clever as they think they are that they can run this business so much better that it can grow self-sufficiently, then they should realize they are creating a business that can justify having some investment pushed into it, to accelerate that process.

That is exactly how I see it, I honestly think we have the global fan base to compete with United they are the benchmark they are what we should be aiming to become. A self financing financial monster that relies on bringing through young players and then supplementing that with a sprinkling of real quality.

Again I agree that the business has the ability to grow organically and to eventually become a self financing financial monster but a relatively small investment can make that more certain and make that happen a hell of a lot faster. I don't want us to be a rich man's plaything like Chelsea or City I just want FSG to fully appreciate what is possible if they invest in a Stadium and increase the quality of the squad.

One of my personal opinions (and someone is going to kill me for this) is that Henry bought us because we were so undervalued he basicallly couldnt miss. I mean Arsenal have a market cap of 1.1bn  enterprise value of 1.4bn and he bought Liverpool for basically a market cap of zero and an enterprise value of zero. (Although it cost him 200m so you can say it cost him 200m of both.) Actually I dont know the details but they were not far from that.

How could you go far wrong. Remember there is a stadium to build which means supporters building a massively cash generative business for you to own etc. Do you realize that Arsenal's share price has gone up 20x relative to Spurs over the last 6 years. Anyway I just guess people will see things differently.

I think Liverpool FC at the time of it's purchase was the absolute definition of Moneyball for a variety of reasons. Hicks and Gillet were acting like a pair of sitting tenants who no longer owned the Club but were not going to go without a long legal wrangle, there was very little liquidity in the markets so it was going to be extremely hard to borrow money to buy the Club and last but not least it was a very public auction. The big financial hitters from the far east are very cautious people who simply would not want to get involved in a process unless they were certain that they were going to get the Club.

Once the BARcap process was under way there was very little room for prospective purchasers to keep their anonymity and would be purchasers faced the real possibility of being seen to of tried to buy the Club and to of failed. That is why a joker like Kenny Huang was given so much credibility. In much the same way that Sheikh Mansoor only emerged as the purchaser of City when the deal was done quite a few people would of been more interested in the Club if they could of bought the Club through a third party.

That is why I think FSG and Henry have plenty of wriggle room, plenty of room to invest in the Stadium and the playing squad and still come out well ahead of the game. Let's hope they are just getting all their financial ducks in a row before they commit to the kind of investment that can help us realise our incredible potential.

[DanA]

One of my personal opinions (and someone is going to kill me for this) is that Henry bought us because we were so undervalued he basicallly couldnt miss. I mean Arsenal have a market cap of 1.1bn  enterprise value of 1.4bn and he bought Liverpool for basically a market cap of zero and an enterprise value of zero. (Although it cost him 200m so you can say it cost him 200m of both.) Actually I dont know the details but they were not far from that.

How could you go far wrong. Remember there is a stadium to build which means supporters building a massively cash generative business for you to own etc. Do you realize that Arsenal's share price has gone up 20x relative to Spurs over the last 6 years. Anyway I just guess people will see things differently.

That's not a bad way of looking at it. It's not hard to see how to make Liverpool a cash cow, it just takes incredible resources to do it.

[DanA]

How many players had played for Barcelona this season? I think more than we have played for us.. Barcelona has the advantage of the best academy at world level. Barcelona B is playing at Segunda and not in La Liga just because of the rules.. it's incomparable, they have double the players Liverpool have, produced by them, ready to take any spot at the starting 11 if needed.. forget Barcelona, bad exemple..

Excluding Raul Meireles we've used 25 players and that includes Flannagan, Shelvey & Robinson which is further evidence of us not needing the full 25 senior listed squad.

Barcelona used 29 players in the entire season of 2010/11. Nine of which made five or less appearances (including subs). They really aren't using there academy as much as you'd think. Players tend to be 21/22 before they graduate from the academy and are relied upon to make first team appearances.

[Abrak]

That's not a bad way of looking at it. It's not hard to see how to make Liverpool a cash cow, it just takes incredible resources to do it.

Yes I believe you could say invest 500m quid and make money out of LFC. But unfortunately FSG have no incentive because they have invested 200m quid. Henry can only justify the ROE rather than the NPV of the investment. That must restrict how much is invested in the business. We really need to get him to sell unless we believe in FFP simply is not going to make an investor invest who is less interested in his ROC.

I simply dont think that FFP will bring return on capital to a level that is of any interest.

[Giono]

That is exactly how I see it, I honestly think we have the global fan base to compete with United they are the benchmark they are what we should be aiming to become. A self financing financial monster that relies on bringing through young players and then supplementing that with a sprinkling of real quality.

Again I agree that the business has the ability to grow organically and to eventually become a self financing financial monster but a relatively small investment can make that more certain and make that happen a hell of a lot faster. I don't want us to be a rich man's plaything like Chelsea or City I just want FSG to fully appreciate what is possible if they invest in a Stadium and increase the quality of the squad.

I have confidence that they are seeing things this way. They elevated Ayre, the commercial director with marketing skills in Asia, to Managing Director. They have invested in the youth set-up. The stadium was going to take time, but they are working on getting it right.

Also, they are experimenting with LFC.tv which is going to be a source of outreach to the large global fanbase and provide exposure to our global sponsors.

I think Liverpool FC at the time of it's purchase was the absolute definition of Moneyball for a variety of reasons. Hicks and Gillet were acting like a pair of sitting tenants who no longer owned the Club but were not going to go without a long legal wrangle, there was very little liquidity in the markets so it was going to be extremely hard to borrow money to buy the Club and last but not least it was a very public auction. The big financial hitters from the far east are very cautious people who simply would not want to get involved in a process unless they were certain that they were going to get the Club.

Once the BARcap process was under way there was very little room for prospective purchasers to keep their anonymity and would be purchasers faced the real possibility of being seen to of tried to buy the Club and to of failed. That is why a joker like Kenny Huang was given so much credibility. In much the same way that Sheikh Mansoor only emerged as the purchaser of City when the deal was done quite a few people would of been more interested in the Club if they could of bought the Club through a third party.

That is why I think FSG and Henry have plenty of wriggle room, plenty of room to invest in the Stadium and the playing squad and still come out well ahead of the game. Let's hope they are just getting all their financial ducks in a row before they commit to the kind of investment that can help us realise our incredible potential.

They got this club for a steal. I don't think they planned to buy a distressed asset and then sell it on later. I think they want to build. This club will be far more valuable when there is a proper stadium in place.

I think they will want also to be here for the longer term. There are 3 big factors that will determine if the value of this club goes up for them. 1. FFP: This will make the club relatively more valuable because sheik or oligarch money can't come in and change the landscape drastically. Right now the competitive situation of any club is on shifting sand (sorry for the pun). 2: Stadium: To compete on a a level playing field we have needed a larger stadium for years. One big thing that has made Man City an attractive asset to multiple sugar daddies is the stadium. Once we get one the market value of the club will get a significant bump. 3: Global reach: While FFP could level the field one way, our global advantage will tip it in our favour. There is a still a lot to be done in this area and Man City, Chelsea and others have not stolen that from us...yet.

FSG is clearly preparing for FFP with the young English buys and the expenditures on academy prospects. They will build a stadium. They are trying to develop the global brand and milk it. 

But if they don't invest in the squad and provide some success, all that will be wasted. FFP will not matter much without CL football. A new stadium will not pay if there are no European nights. Eventually the global brand will erode without success on the international stage.

All things point to FSG investing in the squad in order for the overall project to work.

[DanA]

Yes I believe you could say invest 500m quid and make money out of LFC. But unfortunately FSG have no incentive because they have invested 200m quid. Henry can only justify the ROE rather than the NPV of the investment. That must restrict how much is invested in the business. We really need to get him to sell unless we believe in FFP simply is not going to make an investor invest who is less interested in his ROC.

I simply dont think that FFP will bring return on capital to a level that is of any interest.

When I say incredible resource I mean to build the stadium (something H&G never could get). You don't think building the stadium represents a good investment in terms of ROC?

In regards to the squad yes I can see that but then I don't want to be supporting a club that just throws 1/2 a billion dollars into rebuilding the squad. It feels a little hollow to me.

[Abrak]

Excluding Raul Meireles we've used 25 players and that includes Flannagan, Shelvey & Robinson which is further evidence of us not needing the full 25 senior listed squad.

Barcelona used 29 players in the entire season of 2010/11. Nine of which made five or less appearances (including subs). They really aren't using there academy as much as you'd think. Players tend to be 21/22 before they graduate from the academy and are relied upon to make first team appearances.

Look DanA Barcelona using 29 players is not proof of the fact that we dont we need 25. The fact we got 'away' with 25 is not proof that we only need 25.

You have to accept the simple reality of life that 25 is better than 24. So if you own a football club do not go around telling people that 24 players is better better than 25. When you actually go around telling people that my '24' is better than your '25'. You do not understand how illogical that Henry thinks that is because he thinks you should not own a football club. Because he thinks that my 24 is better than your 25 is not an argument because the argument should start at 25. If your 24 is better than his 25 then all it means is that your 24 should be owned by someone who can afford 25.

I just do not see see how you would want an owner that is allowed 25 players but chooses to have 24. I dont know anything about football really but I cant see the advantage. Is there a cash discount? Or a percentage percentage points discount? I am serious if you are saying I dont have to have so many players if they are not English, so I only have to have to have 20, instead of 25 dont you think that might be a disadvantage? Or maybe I have to only have 10 in instead of 25 before you realize?

Look you can argue that a team doesnt need a goalkeeper. I think that is stupid. But whatever,

[Abrak]

They got this club for a steal. I don't think they planned to buy a distressed asset and then sell it on later. I think they want to build. This club will be far more valuable when there is a proper stadium in place.

Look that is total bullshit. If the club was so cheap why did nobody else buy it. You tell me that after the next set of results? This club is a financial nightmare which is why nobody bought it apart from Henry who thinks he he is a financial genius. Look if this club was a steal there would be people queuing up to buy it. When you see the next set of results you will realize why people were not buying it. And I can guarantee that whatever you think is a steal, I will steal before you have seen the light of day.

[Joe_Singh]

Look that is total bullshit. If the club was so cheap why did nobody else buy it. You tell me that after the next set of results? This club is a financial nightmare which is why nobody bought it apart from Henry who thinks he he is a financial genius. Look if this club was a steal there would be people queuing up to buy it. When you see the next set of results you will realize why people were not buying it. And I can guarantee that whatever you think is a steal, I will steal before you have seen the light of day.

In what way is it a financial nightmare.? I think the circumstances in which the club was sold had something to do with other suiters not coming in.

[DanA]

Look DanA Barcelona using 29 players is not proof of the fact that we dont we need 25. The fact we got 'away' with 25 is not proof that we only need 25.

You have to accept the simple reality of life that 25 is better than 24. So if you own a football club do not go around telling people that 24 players is better better than 25. When you actually go around telling people that my '24' is better than your '25'. You do not understand how illogical that Henry thinks that is because he thinks you should not own a football club. Because he thinks that my 24 is better than your 25 is not an argument because the argument should start at 25. If your 24 is better than his 25 then all it means is that your 24 should be owned by someone who can afford 25.

I just do not see see how you would want an owner that is allowed 25 players but chooses to have 24. I dont know anything about football really but I cant see the advantage. Is there a cash discount? Or a percentage percentage points discount? I am serious if you are saying I dont have to have so many players if they are not English, so I only have to have to have 20, instead of 25 dont you think that might be a disadvantage? Or maybe I have to only have 10 in instead of 25 before you realize?

Look you can argue that a team doesnt need a goalkeeper. I think that is stupid. But whatever,

It's not a simple fact of life because Liverpool have finite resources and there is an opportunity cost. You want more cover then it means you can spend fewer dollars improve your starting 11 or probably more relevant 17 players in regular rotation

Too highlight the point is 100 players better than 25 as well?

My opinion would be no as 75 of them are needlessly chewing up wages that could be better spent on improving the starting 11 players. It's a matter of finding the sweat spot of money on the pitch and acceptable levels of cover. You can argue 25 i'm arguing it less.

Either way I am curious as to why you think my argument is so stupid.