Topic: Re: John Henry's open letter to fans

[redmark]

If we didn't want to be stuck with an old player on a fat contract why did we bid for Dempsey in the first place. Did we only realise how old he was after we tapped him up

No, you assess the risk, the benefit and put a value on it; a total cost of ownership value. Say it was going to be £4m, plus £80k/pw for 4 years - about £20m. If that was the max and Fulham wanted £6m, does Dempsey take a lower wage? No. An extra £2m isn't much, perhaps, but what if Fulham wanted £10m? £15m?

I think the message from FSG to Rodgers was that a 'max' means max. Perhaps that was a message that Commoli and Dalglish didn't heed, or FSG didn't enforce, last season. How that was conveyed, and how it was received, may have left something to be desired - a mistake which hopefully won't be made again.

[Eeyore]

No, you assess the risk, the benefit and put a value on it; a total cost of ownership value. Say it was going to be £4m, plus £80k/pw for 4 years - about £20m. If that was the max and Fulham wanted £6m, does Dempsey take a lower wage? No. An extra £2m isn't much, perhaps, but what if Fulham wanted £10m? £15m?

I think the message from FSG to Rodgers was that a 'max' means max. Perhaps that was a message that Commoli and Dalglish didn't heed, or FSG didn't enforce, last season. How that was conveyed, and how it was received, may have left something to be desired - a mistake which hopefully won't be made again.

I am actually agreeing with you mate the only bit I am not so sure about is whether Rodgers was actually pushing for Dempsey or whether he was led to believe it was already a done deal. Werner spoke about Dempsey on the 3rd of May , Dempsey told his team mates he was joining Liverpool and the Nesn piece about Dempsey being a Liverpool player smacked of a pre prepared piece slipping through the net.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

No, you assess the risk, the benefit and put a value on it; a total cost of ownership value. Say it was going to be £4m, plus £80k/pw for 4 years - about £20m. If that was the max and Fulham wanted £6m, does Dempsey take a lower wage? No. An extra £2m isn't much, perhaps, but what if Fulham wanted £10m? £15m?

I think the message from FSG to Rodgers was that a 'max' means max. Perhaps that was a message that Commoli and Dalglish didn't heed, or FSG didn't enforce, last season. How that was conveyed, and how it was received, may have left something to be desired - a mistake which hopefully won't be made again.

Exactly, its clear Rodgers is picking the players he wants but the board will make sure the player fits into what the club is trying to do. You can criticize the  logic behind this but don't make it out like the manager doesn't choose who he wants to bring in.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

I am actually agreeing with you mate the only bit I am not so sure about is whether Rodgers was actually pushing for Dempsey or whether he was led to believe it was already a done deal. Werner spoke about Dempsey on the 3rd of May , Dempsey told his team mates he was joining Liverpool and the Nesn piece about Dempsey being a Liverpool player smacked of a pre prepared piece slipping through the net.

Werner was asked about Dempsey and he gave a response which was nothing special, this summer we were interested in the player but didn't make a bid until deadline day so how was it believed to be a done deal?

Rodgers clearly wanted Dempsey but the club weren't willing to match Fulham's asking price, I don't see why there has to be some other angle to this

[rafathegaffa83]

Holy crap. Funny world. He never did work under Hicks though did he?? 

Nope. Joined them January 18th 2011. Hicks sold the Rangers on January 22nd 2010.

[Wingman]

What I can't understand is this getting rid of all this players. It cost loads.

You've to pay up all their contract, agent fee's etc - For example Adam 4m transfer would of cost us about 2m.

It's madness.

I lnow there are compromises on fees, wages and loyalty bonuses etc. but madness is paying up someone's contract you've sold!

[TSC]

I don't have all the answers. I'm basing my opinion purely on fact and consistency.

Some of the arguments on here are truly ridiculous, pulled out of thin air with no credible source to back them up. If Henry genuinely said what TSC claims he said in the open letter, then show me. Copy and paste it. I've looked and i can't find anything like it. If you wanna base your argument on a section of the open letter that doesn't actually exist then thats your problem.

I posted that Henry admitted they'd made mistakes over last 2 years.  Can't believe you refuse to believe this.  You must not have read the letter.  Just for you then since you seem unable to read the letter.  It ain't hard to find.  Here's the content where he admitted they'd made mistakes over the last 2 yrs;

'We are still in the process of reversing the errors of previous regimes. It will not happen overnight. It has been compounded by our own mistakes in a difficult first two years of ownership. It has been a harsh education..'

I won't bother quoting Rodgers bit, I think even you now accept he made comments about letting Carroll go without any replacements.

No doubt you'll say all that is still 'putting 2 and 2 together'.

[Wingman]

The Carroll deal is an interesting one we paid 35m which is 7m a year over the five years of his deal .If we sold this summer after 18 months his value on the books is 35m less 10.5m so 24.5m.

We loan him out for a year his value on the books drops to 17.5m the same amount as his buyout with West ham.

Are you implying that our selling policy is based around net book value?

[CraigDS]

The Carroll deal is an interesting one we paid 35m which is 7m a year over the five years of his deal .If we sold this summer after 18 months his value on the books is 35m less 10.5m so 24.5m.

We loan him out for a year his value on the books drops to 17.5m the same amount as his buyout with West ham.

It was probably a consideration. Infact I expect it was definitely a consideration - as it should be with FFP coming in.

However I also expect they'd of taken a hit should a decent offer of been made, but that wasn't forth coming so the best deal really has been to loam out and take more next summer.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Finally our supporters start to question what is going on, welcome to the club trying to make some sense in all this. I´ve been there for years, getting paranoid IS all what´s left at the end, there has to be something else behind it as it all doesn´t make any sense and I still can´t get my head around it.

And THIS is exactly what I was thinking a couple of times, not only this season, and I only could think of two explainations for this. Both are just depressing thoughts but pretty common in this shite football business.

I´ve banging on this forever, the money is there, it has nothing to do with it, just a deflacting argument for what is going on behind the scenes.

Okay, so what is going on behind the scenes? Question for you and djphal.

[nightporter]

I think where we are financially and where we are on the pitch right now are in some ways unconnected.

I don't believe Dempsey or any other sub-£10 million or £10 - £12 million forward would have made a great deal of difference to our performances between now and January. I understand the argument that we are short of strikers after letting Carroll go, but are we not locked into the idea that an old fashioned number 9 is what we need?

I also think there is more deadwood to get rid of. I thought the managers comments about young players doing anything for you was a very telling comment. I really think it won't be his team until he's hand picked each player himself.

What makes it so maddening for us is that Liverpool are once again in a transitional period, but I've got a good feeling about Rodgers and his ethos.

Can we wait? We've got no choice.

[L666KOP]

Are you implying that our selling policy is based around net book value?

I'd say it has quite an impact, if we'd have sold him for 17 this window technically we'd have made a 7.5m loss on him, that's half of Joe Allen.
We loan him out, albeit stupidly, he costs us no more money, and we sell him next window for his current amortized value, break even if you will.
We know for a fact that FSG are working to a fairly strict FFP set of guidelines.
The only way I could see them taking a hit on Carroll this summer was if they could have sold Agger as well, his value on the books must be close to zero.

[walshys_mullet]

We had a stable of strikers from January 2012 on to May 2012. This current season is only 3 games old. Our poor use of resources does not absolve how awful we have been this year.

We are a laughing stock because our results from January 2012 onwards have been unacceptable for a club of Liverpool's stature. That has nothing to do with Clint Dempsey.

What strikers?

We had Bellamy who according to the club couldnt play back to back games, then fell out of favour for a bit. We had kuyt who was in and out and had long since stopped being a striker due to a change of roles. We had Suarez missing for a chunk of the season and no doubt affected by everything that went on, and a struggling Andy Carroll who was trying to get up to speed and get his career going.

I wouldnt call any of them prolific.

Hindsight is wonderful, but you look at Jelavic and hes a proper finisher, and he could have been ours.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Walshy's Mullet and Wark's Moustache.  I really don't think you should ever be seen together. Like some mutant photofit of an 80's footballer.  You will scare the kids.

I think people are reading far too much into these FFP guidelines.  The club's accounts are in a mess but are being rectified but, exceptional stadium charges excepted, even at their messiest we have never really been in danger of falling foul of not meeting FFP since FSG took over.  The changes they are bringing about are to make the club structurally profitable so that it generates funds to compete in the transfer market.

All this stuff about balancing the books with Carroll's sale for the purposes of FFP is a red herring.

[CraigDS]

I'd say it has quite an impact, if we'd have sold him for 17 this window technically we'd have made a 7.5m loss on him, that's half of Joe Allen.
We loan him out, albeit stupidly, he costs us no more money, and we sell him next window for his current amortized value, break even if you will.
We know for a fact that FSG are working to a fairly strict FFP set of guidelines.
The only way I could see them taking a hit on Carroll this summer was if they could have sold Agger as well, his value on the books must be close to zero.

This is presuming someone made an offer of £17m this window, which I don't think they did. If so I expect they would of snatched their hand off and taken the hit.

Aggers sale would of made no difference to how they viewed Carroll imo.

[redmark]

What strikers?

We had Bellamy who according to the club couldnt play back to back games, then fell out of favour for a bit. We had kuyt who was in and out and had long since stopped being a striker due to a change of roles. We had Suarez missing for a chunk of the season and no doubt affected by everything that went on, and a struggling Andy Carroll who was trying to get up to speed and get his career going.

I wouldnt call any of them prolific.

Hindsight is wonderful, but you look at Jelavic and hes a proper finisher, and he could have been ours.

But you're not actually disagreeing with his point - poor use of resources. Either one game in two from Bellamy was enough, or don't sign him (and him being "out of favour" is an even poorer use of resources). Kuyt being unused or used on the right - he's scored six goals in seven games in Turkey: were his wages better spent having him on the bench, or perhaps playing upfront while Suarez was suspended and Carroll struggling? As for Carroll struggling... exactly. We spent £35m on a young striker who took 16 months to look even remotely effective. Clearly FSG also blamed Dalglish at least in part for the handling of the Suarez case and potentially the length of the suspension.

Devil's Advocate - in that situation, mismanaging his main striker, unable to motivate or coach his most expensive striker, and unable/unwilling to use effectively two other (high wage earning) potential strikers - why would FSG trust Dalglish's judgement on buying another striker at that time? Yes, we could have had Jelavic. We could have not bought Carroll, Downing, Henderson and Adam for a combined £80m, too. If we needed a proper finisher in January, why didn't we need one six months earlier? It's hardly a revelation that that isn't a natural description of any of the strikers on our books at the time.

I don't know when FSG decided to sack Dalglish. I do know that the moment Dalglish and friends in the media started talking about investment and just needing a couple of players (to correct his own transfer errors), I started to question whether he was sufficiently aware of the tactical issues affecting the team, whether he was able to motivate and get his ideas across to the players he already had at his disposal, and whether his judgement was good enough to be given another warchest.

[L666KOP]

This is presuming someone made an offer of £17m this window, which I don't think they did. If so I expect they would of snatched their hand off and taken the hit.

Aggers sale would of made no difference to how they viewed Carroll imo.

Were we not offered a similar deal to the one we settled on earlier in the window, but with an obligation to buy, as opposed tooption to buy?

Surely that deal was as good as money?

Don't understand why we've now relented, unless Andy wanted it that way?

[Draex]

I'm very happy our owners didn't give our manager a Carte Blanche to sign/pay whoever/whatever he wants.. We are supposed to be self sufficient - we are. So what's the issue? If it's lack of strikers well look at teams around us and we are in the same boat of most of them bar Utd/City

[Fordy]

Hindsight is wonderful, but you look at Jelavic and hes a proper finisher, and he could have been ours.

Kenny wanted him but FSG didn't, so the strong rumours go.

Jelavic scores goals and one of the reasons why Eventon will finish above us again.

[redmark]

Don't understand why we've now relented, unless Andy wanted it that way?

That seems most likely; fitting with not wanting to go to WH initially, if there's no obligation he can hope to do well and persuade Newcastle to come back in for him.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

What strikers?

We had Bellamy who according to the club couldnt play back to back games, then fell out of favour for a bit. We had kuyt who was in and out and had long since stopped being a striker due to a change of roles. We had Suarez missing for a chunk of the season and no doubt affected by everything that went on, and a struggling Andy Carroll who was trying to get up to speed and get his career going.

I wouldnt call any of them prolific.

Hindsight is wonderful, but you look at Jelavic and hes a proper finisher, and he could have been ours.

Yet Kenny signed Bellamy, Suarez and Carroll. There are questions which need to be asked but has more to do with our recruitment than our spending.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

Walshy's Mullet and Wark's Moustache.  I really don't think you should ever be seen together. Like some mutant photofit of an 80's footballer.  You will scare the kids.

I think people are reading far too much into these FFP guidelines.  The club's accounts are in a mess but are being rectified but, exceptional stadium charges excepted, even at their messiest we have never really been in danger of falling foul of not meeting FFP since FSG took over.  The changes they are bringing about are to make the club structurally profitable so that it generates funds to compete in the transfer market.

All this stuff about balancing the books with Carroll's sale for the purposes of FFP is a red herring.

Yes it just diverts from the fact the Rodgers wanted him out right from the point he got the job

[CraigDS]

Were we not offered a similar deal to the one we settled on earlier in the window, but with an obligation to buy, as opposed to option to buy?

Surely that deal was as good as money?

Don't understand why we've now relented, unless Andy wanted it that way?

Presuming that the reports were true (big chance they may not be) I suspect it was Andy's choice to do it that way as gives him more choice next summer.

[Eeyore]

Walshy's Mullet and Wark's Moustache.  I really don't think you should ever be seen together. Like some mutant photofit of an 80's footballer.  You will scare the kids.

I think people are reading far too much into these FFP guidelines.  The club's accounts are in a mess but are being rectified but, exceptional stadium charges excepted, even at their messiest we have never really been in danger of falling foul of not meeting FFP since FSG took over.  The changes they are bringing about are to make the club structurally profitable so that it generates funds to compete in the transfer market.

All this stuff about balancing the books with Carroll's sale for the purposes of FFP is a red herring.

Kev I brought up why in accounting terms selling Agger would of been preferable to selling Carroll this summer. In the last accounts there was the huge exceptional losses regarding the Stadium but there was also an accounting profit of £43m on players due to the sale of Torres, Mascherano and Babel who had low amortized values.

Whilst Selling Babel and Torres for £55.8m and buying Suarez and Carroll for £57.8m might look like a 2m net loss in accounting terms it was a colossal profit that would be very hard to achieve again. There is going to be huge press interest in the next couple of sets of accounts and the only thing the vast majority of them will be interested in is the bottom line profit or loss figure. People will read the headline and largely ignore the content. Selling Agger would of been around a 25m+ profit on the books selling Carroll would of been around a 10m+ loss.

The Amortized profit doesn't last for ever though this year we will be in accounting terms paying down around 7m for Carroll and around 4.5m for Suarez, that for me is why there is a need to massively reduce the wage bill this season. If we don't then the accounts will look absolutely horrendous and it will only be the likes of the Swiss Ramble who will dig deeper and look at the real picture.

[redmark]

Kev I brought up why in accounting terms selling Agger would of been preferable to selling Carroll this summer. In the last accounts there was the huge exceptional losses regarding the Stadium but there was also an accounting profit of £43m on players due to the sale of Torres, Mascherano and Babel who had low amortized values.

Whilst Selling Babel and Torres for £55.8m and buying Suarez and Carroll for £57.8m might look like a 2m net loss in accounting terms it was a colossal profit that would be very hard to achieve again. There is going to be huge press interest in the next couple of sets of accounts and the only thing the vast majority of them will be interested in is the bottom line profit or loss figure. People will read the headline and largely ignore the content. Selling Agger would of been around a 25m+ profit on the books selling Carroll would of been around a 10m+ loss.

The Amortized profit doesn't last for ever though this year we will be in accounting terms paying down around 7m for Carroll and around 4.5m for Suarez, that for me is why there is a need to massively reduce the wage bill this season. If we don't then the accounts will look absolutely horrendous and it will only be the likes of the Swiss Ramble who will dig deeper and look at the real picture.

And yet we didn't sell Agger.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

And yet we didn't sell Agger.

or Carroll for that matter, if they were so bent on cooking the books we would have accepted the fee for Agger at least maybe we would have had money to sign Dempsey

[Alan_X]

What I can't understand is this getting rid of all this players. It cost loads.

You've to pay up all their contract, agent fee's etc - For example Adam 4m transfer would of cost us about 2m.

It's madness.

You don't have to pay up all the their contract if they're being transferred. You would only do that if you're terminating the contract unilaterally.

[WaltonRed]

I'm very happy our owners didn't give our manager a Carte Blanche to sign/pay whoever/whatever he wants.. We are supposed to be self sufficient - we are. So what's the issue? If it's lack of strikers well look at teams around us and we are in the same boat of most of them bar Utd/City

Yeah, really?

Can you list all the other clubs in the Premiership who dont have an out and out goalscorer (a Number 9)?

Which are the other teams whose only natural goalscorer in the squad is an 18 year old who has never actually played a minute of league football?

Just wondering, like.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Kev I brought up why in accounting terms selling Agger would of been preferable to selling Carroll this summer. In the last accounts there was the huge exceptional losses regarding the Stadium but there was also an accounting profit of £43m on players due to the sale of Torres, Mascherano and Babel who had low amortized values.

Whilst Selling Babel and Torres for £55.8m and buying Suarez and Carroll for £57.8m might look like a 2m net loss in accounting terms it was a colossal profit that would be very hard to achieve again. There is going to be huge press interest in the next couple of sets of accounts and the only thing the vast majority of them will be interested in is the bottom line profit or loss figure. People will read the headline and largely ignore the content. Selling Agger would of been around a 25m+ profit on the books selling Carroll would of been around a 10m+ loss.

The Amortized profit doesn't last for ever though this year we will be in accounting terms paying down around 7m for Carroll and around 4.5m for Suarez, that for me is why there is a need to massively reduce the wage bill this season. If we don't then the accounts will look absolutely horrendous and it will only be the likes of the Swiss Ramble who will dig deeper and look at the real picture.

Al not arguing with any of that - though only issue I had was as regards FFP.  If we're aiming to be sustainable and we miss the initial window of leeway allowed in FFP then we are truly fucked.  We will be well inside the the FFP boundaries we don't need to shuffle Andy Carroll around like a gangly poker chip in order to comply with FFP.

[CraigDS]

The Amortized profit doesn't last for ever though this year we will be in accounting terms paying down around 7m for Carroll and around 4.5m for Suarez, that for me is why there is a need to massively reduce the wage bill this season. If we don't then the accounts will look absolutely horrendous and it will only be the likes of the Swiss Ramble who will dig deeper and look at the real picture.

Suarez signed a new contract so his cost will now been spread over a longer period.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

or Carroll for that matter, if they were so bent on cooking the books we would have accepted the fee for Agger at least maybe we would have had money to sign Dempsey

Just let's be clear here - what Al is suggesting is a long long way from cooking the books.  So don't suggest otherwise. 

As usual I think that Occams Razor should be applied.  Carroll was not sold this season because there was no deal that satisifed all three parties, if a suitable deal had been found then he would have gone.  Accounts or no accounts.

[CraigDS]

Carroll was not sold this season because there was no deal that satisifed all three parties, if a suitable deal had been found then he would have gone.  Accounts or no accounts.

Exactly.

If WHU had offered £17m now, or a loan and £17m next season I highly doubt FSG would of picked the latter.

[Eeyore]

Suarez signed a new contract so his cost will now been spread over a longer period.

It was a two year extension on a long term deal and his improved wages will more than wipe out any amortization benefit though.

[CraigDS]

It was a two year extension on a long term deal and his improved wages will more than wipe out any amortization benefit though.

Indeed, was just pointing out that the amount being written down will be a lot less now it is spread over a longer period again.

[WaltonRed]

Exactly.

If WHU had offered £17m now, or a loan and £17m next season I highly doubt FSG would of picked the latter.

Agree.  But with our club at the moment we would no doubt have managed to fuck up.  Perhaps a third way where we say £20M and not a penny less.  They back down and agree only for us to lose the fax and find it after the transfer window has closed?

Dont underestimate our ability to fuck up:  there are no depths of comic ineptitude to which we cannot fall.  Dont forget we are a club that somehow managed to fail to sign a player who was inexpensive, desperate to come, the manager's first choice, appeared on our website 3 months ago as having signed, and had told his colleagues was joining!  And not only did we fail to sign him but we are being investigated for tapping him up.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

Yeah, really?

Can you list all the other clubs in the Premiership who dont have an out and out goalscorer (a Number 9)?

Which are the other teams whose only natural goalscorer in the squad is an 18 year old who has never actually played a minute of league football?

Just wondering, like.

And whose fault is it we don't have one when we have spent well over 50M on that very position

Just let's be clear here - what Al is suggesting is a long long way from cooking the books.  So don't suggest otherwise. 

As usual I think that Occams Razor should be applied.  Carroll was not sold this season because there was no deal that satisifed all three parties, if a suitable deal had been found then he would have gone.  Accounts or no accounts.

Well he made it sound like we were pushing the Carroll deal to make the next set of accounts to be released look healthier than they actually were.

Your second point is quite correct, the manager wanted to sell Carroll to help fund his pursuit of better attacking options. The best deal we got was a loan deal with the view to bringing in a replacement before the window closed.

I don't see why it has to be more complicated or sinister than this

[CraigDS]

Dont forget we are a club that somehow managed to fail to sign a player who was inexpensive, desperate to come, the manager's first choice, appeared on our website 3 months ago as having signed, and had told his colleagues was joining!  And not only did we fail to sign him but we are being investigated for tapping him up.

He wasn't the managers first choice, Borini was. Hence we signed him early and Dempsey went to the last day.

He also didn't appear on our website. He appeared on NESN which has nothing to do with us and often runs stories which are based on rumour - as any sports news site does.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

He wasn't the managers first choice, Borini was. Hence we signed him early and Dempsey went to the last day.

He also didn't appear on our website. He appeared on NESN which has nothing to do with us and often runs stories which are based on rumour - as any sports news site does.

It's amazing how people on here form opinions based on little to no information or better yet accurate information. They are more than happy to just follow the popular opinion of the day.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

I've been saying for some time now it's not our spending which has been the problem but our recruitment

Gary Jacob ‏@garyjacob
Annual transfer spending, average over past 5 seasons. #MUFC £6m, CFC £50m, #MCFC £83m, #LFC £10.4, #AVFC £12m. #THFC £16m. AFC? £7m profit

If you factor in the last couple of years under H&G where we have very little spending then you can clearly see that our spending is not our biggest problem at all

[jDJ]

Dont forget we are a club that somehow managed to fail to sign a player who was inexpensive, desperate to come, the manager's first choice, appeared on our website 3 months ago as having signed, and had told his colleagues was joining!  And not only did we fail to sign him but we are being investigated for tapping him up.

Not quite as simple as all that though is it.  The fact Fulham believed we'd tapped Dempsey up and the sour relationship between the two clubs actually made the deal more complicated not easier.  Fulham, I suspect, were gagging to do business with anyone but us.  One factor people never really talk about is how Dempsey himself played a part in all this.  A month ago when we were by far the biggest club interested in Dempsey, his first choice was to come to us.  But come the last day when Spurs were also bidding, probably offering equivalent or better wages and, we shouldn't forget, a club in the same city as he currently resides.  It's quite possible Dempsey didn't push for Liverpool at all at that stage.  If Dempsey had said I'm not going to Spurs, it's quite possible we'd have won the game of poker we were playing with Fulham.