Topic: The bigger picture; £500,000 saved. A WEEK.

[Funky_Gibbons]

How many of those did they buy for big fees as first team regulars. Whilst we are loaning Reina out Brad Jones will be getting games for us, whilst we loaned out Aquilani we had the likes of Adam and Spearing playing for us and whilst Carroll was playing for West Ham we had Yesil pulling on a red shirt and all those massive wave savings have resulted in a pretty static wage bill its absolute madness.

Dos Santos and Bentley were big money signings.

I'm not saying that the loans are good for us, but we are currently trying to shaspe the squad and make room for new players that the manager wants by shifting high earning but poorly performing players. If a buyer can't be found immediately they are going out on loan. If we're still loaning out players in a year or two then there's a problem.

[conman]

Wages vs points, feb 2013

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/wage-and-the-premier-league-scaled-table

[Eeyore]

So how are Monaco , PSG , Man City getting round the FFP then?

You can make huge losses initially as long as each successive loss is smaller than the last one and you show a positive trend. So you get the damage to your books out of the way early and then ease up on your spending. There is also the recently introduced premier league break even rules. Which should stop the bankrolling of English teams.

[Funky_Gibbons]

  To be fair chops the sugar daddy bollocks is the biggest red herring ever. FFP stops owners from bankrolling unsustainable spending. The amount owners can pump in is being reduced season on season so it is for me a lame excuse. Chelsea for example have taken measures to comply with FFP they have offloaded older higher paid players and sold amortized players and invested in top notch young players on long contracts. Abramovich is now longer bankrolling them the way he did half a decade ago they are just being smarter than us and achieving more than us.

I don't pretend to know much about FFP, but from what I understand clubsonly need to show they are trying to reduce their spending. So if someone in debt spent £120m last season they can spend £100m the following  season and claim they are improving.

[walshys_mullet]

I don't pretend to know much about FFP, but from what I understand clubsonly need to show they are trying to reduce their spending. So if someone in debt spent £120m last season they can spend £100m the following  season and claim they are improving.

Well we are well on course then!

[Acaustiq]

You can make huge losses initially as long as each successive loss is smaller than the last one and you show a positive trend.

Unless the rules have changed dramatically since I last read them a year ago - no you can't.

[CHOPPER]

  To be fair chops the sugar daddy bollocks is the biggest red herring ever. FFP stops owners from bankrolling unsustainable spending. The amount owners can pump in is being reduced season on season so it is for me a lame excuse. Chelsea for example have taken measures to comply with FFP they have offloaded older higher paid players and used sold amortized players and invested in top notch young players on long contracts. Abramovich is now longer bankrolling them the way he did half a decade ago they are just being smarter than us and achieving more than us.

I'd disagree Al, I think rules are made to broken and the big bucks teams Chelsea, City, Barca, Real -I don't include Moyes United in them as they're for me run quite tight - will find a way by hook or by crook, to break or circumnavigate those rules. City giving themselves their own sponsorship of a stadium, chelsea by other means. Remember Kenyon quoted as saying chelsea will break even in (was it two?) two years, he was out on his arse those two years later and RA wrote off(500 mill?) a massive amount of debt to position themselves in this 'self sustaining' position.

Either way, they(a chelsea as an example) can and will, buy themselves out of a tight situation, we can't, so we as mentioned; have to be ahead of the game.

Personally and £ for £, I think we are ahead, how we add onto to that with the restraints we have, ours being - we don't have enough of it, theirs being they can't spend enough of it - remains to be seen. But it doesn't get away from the fact that we have to get more bang for our buck in whatever it is we do.


And hope for a bit of luck... and who hasn't won on a bit of luck ?....


Al; You edited your post and my sausage fingers are not quick enough to reply once more. So you'll have to go with this answer.

[SerbianScouser]

If City can afford 80m circa net outlay this summer than even with all the restrictions out there they are still sugar daddy compared to us. At least thats how it looks from my layman`s point of view.

[Eeyore]

Dos Santos and Bentley were big money signings.

I'm not saying that the loans are good for us, but we are currently trying to shaspe the squad and make room for new players that the manager wants by shifting high earning but poorly performing players. If a buyer can't be found immediately they are going out on loan. If we're still loaning out players in a year or two then there's a problem.

Dos Santos and Bentley were signed 5 years ago and were young players signed for their potential and wouldn't get within a million miles of playing for Spain or Italy. They were loaned out quite simply because Spurs had better players in their position that isn't the case with Reina, Aquilani or Carroll.

[TitanTrigger]

You can make huge losses initially as long as each successive loss is smaller than the last one and you show a positive trend. So you get the damage to your books out of the way early and then ease up on your spending. There is also the recently introduced premier league break even rules. Which should stop the bankrolling of English teams.

That's not true

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/if-losses-are-trending-in-the-right-direction-will-a-club-pass-the-ffp-test-

City are trying to get around FFP with huge sponsorship deals with Abu Dhabi based companies, they have also tried a trick with selling intellectual property to their owner.

PSG have signed a huge and backdated consultancy contract with Qatar Tourism supposedly to help them with the staging of the world cup.

Chelsea though have legitimately made the jump to a big club and have genuinely increased their turnover to match their spending, and all it took was 10 years and £1 bln.

[steveeastend]

I don´t know why these discussions always have to be so extreme... moneyball only vs big spending only.

It´s about the right mixture and so far we are on a good path for next season. Quality player will demand earning good money and that´s what´s necessary to have around as a backbone, always. There is no way winning with youngsters only neither you win with wasting it on big wages only.

I think we are doing fine this summer, Rodgers knows exactly which type of player he wants to have around, experienced ones and talents and it has little to do with money at the moment I think.

Of course, in general we were forced to save a buck here and there but the money is definitely around to keep the ones we have at the moment. In short, I don´t think we are forced to sell the likes of Skrtel or Downing.

[LiverpoolKopKings]

Didn't read all the posts. Some time ago there was a news/rumour (not sure which) that the club wanted to change the players wage structure so as part of it was based on performance and targets achievement.

Was this discussed in the thread already.

If not it would make sense, as part of the performance money section could be tied to if a player manages to play or even take it further and put in if a player makes the first 11 or the bench or nothing at all.

It would be hard on the injured or those needed to be rested but it would make sense on those not performing or else out on suspension. It would allow us to keep players such as Reina and Skrtel as when they are not playing they'd make as much as a backup player, with the difference that the quality is of a 1st eleven.

Obviously we would be pioneers in this I think, and it 'll be hard to convince new players to come on these conditions. But if we take it in small stages and start with the performance bonus say of 5% and when the club grows and is more stable league position wise we will be in a better bargaining position.

[Funky_Gibbons]

Dos Santos and Bentley were signed 5 years ago and were young players signed for their potential and wouldn't get within a million miles of playing for Spain or Italy. They were loaned out quite simply because Spurs had better players in their position that isn't the case with Reina, Aquilani or Carroll.

You're moving the goal posts. You asked how many were big money signings for the first team and I gave you two examples. You're now saying do wouldn't be good enough for Spain or Italy?

Both Dos Santos and Bvently were signed for big money to play first team football. Neither player performed to the level of their transfer fee and were loaned out.

[CraigDS]

The massive flaw in your argument is that Spurs haven't paid off three managers and their staff since 2011 and don't have the madcap policy of loaning out players paying part of their wages and then going out and buying more players and paying them wages aswell. I am not sure how good FSG are at running a football club but I think they are brilliant at reducing pan European unemployment. We are in affect subsidising a fair chunk of the teams in Europe. They would also be brilliant at reducing immigration because you don't even have to move stay in Italy, France or Spain and we will pay part of your wages anyway.

It's not a massive flaw at all, as even ignoring the costs for the two management changes they have been the decision makers on (Owl and Dalglish), we were still making a massive loss. In fact ignoring all exceptional items in the accounts (which is what these are, they are not accounted for in wages in any way) we were still making big losses.

That's not even including a positive net transfer spend which would increase the losses further.

The loans are mostly down to having players on contracts they just won't give up and it was the best we could do to trim costs (a hangover from the H&G, Purslow, era) - unfortunately when someone is on a silly contract we can't just force them to accept a lower wage elsewhere.

We might well be reducing the wages of the people who manage or play for us but whilst we continue to pay people who don't manage or play for us we will continue to struggle to compete.

Even if we took the portion of wages over the past few years we've been paying for players who have been out on loan, I seriously doubt this would of changed our ability to compete to any great degree. Afterall, we were still paying over £40m in wages above Spurs per season and not competing with them.

[naka]

So how are Monaco , PSG , Man City getting round the FFP then?

You forgot about Real Madrid

[Butter Keks]

  To be fair chops the sugar daddy bollocks is the biggest red herring ever. FFP stops owners from bankrolling unsustainable spending. The amount owners can pump in is being reduced season on season so it is for me a lame excuse. Chelsea for example have taken measures to comply with FFP they have offloaded older higher paid players and sold amortized players and invested in top notch young players on long contracts. Abramovich is now longer bankrolling them the way he did half a decade ago they are just being smarter than us and achieving more than us.

Sorry Al but this post is bollocks. Chelsea spent 101m last season, 91m the season before and before that 111m. FFP wont be much bother to the likes of Chelsea and PSG due to a loophole in the regulations that allows high-deficit clubs into Europe, so long as their financial performance demonstrates a positive trajectory.

I know you like to have your daily dig at the club but this one is wide of the mark.

[Supersuarez7]

Dos Santos and Bentley were signed 5 years ago and were young players signed for their potential and wouldn't get within a million miles of playing for Spain or Italy. They were loaned out quite simply because Spurs had better players in their position that isn't the case with Reina, Aquilani or Carroll.

Mignolet (debateable) Couthino, Sturridge..........

[flinner]

Maximise revenue, decrease costs, anyone would think the owners were trying to sell the club.

Thinking the same.

[steveeastend]

People should forget about FFP, it won´t have the slightest impact on how things are done, not a little bit. It´s about being clever on the transfer market and knowing when it is the right time to push on and when to wait on.

[Supersuarez7]

Maximise revenue, decrease costs, anyone would think the owners were trying to sell the club.

Or start running the club like a successful business again whilst trying to make it successful and compete without dragging us into the red and doing a Leeds utd, just a thought

[Acaustiq]

Maximise revenue, decrease costs, anyone would think the owners were trying to sell the club.

Or run a business, you know, like everyone claimed they wanted when we were going under.

Increasing revenue and decreasing costs? Madness I tell thee, madness.

[TSC]

Or start running the club like a successful business again whilst trying to make it successful and compete without dragging us into the red and doing a Leeds utd, just a thought

Club was always run successfully until it was sold to the yanks (1st lot).  Even now its still up near the top of the tree turnover wise - would be even higher if the stadium had ever materialised.  Most if not all games are a sell out, hence the ST waiting list.  Other than that, yep, just like Leeds.

[Alf]

Or run a business, you know, like everyone claimed they wanted when we were going under.

Increasing revenue and decreasing costs? Madness I tell thee, madness.

3 years ago, I'd have given anything for it. Finishing 7th and doing nothing in the domestic Cups just wasn't acceptable.

Or start running the club like a successful business again whilst trying to make it successful and compete without dragging us into the red and doing a Leeds utd, just a thought

More TV money, more kit money, more shirt sponsorship, less wages. Better business model yes, more likely to be competitive no.

[CraigDS]

Club was always run successfully until it was sold to the yanks (1st lot).  Even now its still up near the top of the tree turnover wise - would be even higher if the stadium had ever materialised.  Most if not all games are a sell out, hence the ST waiting list.  Other than that, yep, just like Leeds.

Ironically though, the reason we don't have that stadium is because the club wasnt being run properly prior to H&G coming in.

[Supersuarez7]

3 years ago, I'd have given anything for it. Finishing 7th and doing nothing in the domestic Cups just wasn't acceptable.

More TV money, more kit money, more shirt sponsorship, less wages. Better business model yes, more likely to be competitive no.

So buying wisely that reduces the wage bill and builds a better business model whilst unearthing young cheap talent won't also make us more competitive? fuck that we should ditch Aspas, Couthino and Sturridge and bring back Adam, Spearing and Cole then..

[Eeyore]

Sorry Al but this post is bollocks. Chelsea spent 101m last season, 91m the season before and before that 111m. FFP wont be much bother to the likes of Chelsea and PSG due to a loophole in the regulations that allows high-deficit clubs into Europe, so long as their financial performance demonstrates a positive trajectory.

I know you like to have your daily dig at the club but this one is wide of the mark.

The Swiss ramble did a piece on how Chelsea have readied themselves for FFP. They might of spent big but they have offloaded their older big earners, have sold players whose values have amortized down to low levels and have invested massively in young top talent on long contracts who earn far less than the likes of Drogba did. In a few years time selling an Oscar or a Mata when their value on the books has dropped will allow them to repeat the trick.

They have stockpiled some of the finest young talent on the planet. It is very noticeable to me that they haven't given Mourinho a huge warchest this time and our acting far more responsibly. In their last accounts they posted a 1.4m operating profit and a 28.8m profit on players because although they pay big transfer fees they tend to pay once and get years of service out of players.

[Alf]

So buying wisely that reduces the wage bill and builds a better business model whilst unearthing young cheap talent won't also make us more competitive? fuck that we should ditch Aspas, Couthino and Sturridge and bring back Adam, Spearing and Cole then..

I've not named any players. Last summer we offloaded 4 of our 6 biggest goal threats off of the wage bill. We bought in 1 player unproven in the Premier League  to replace them. Our season was over when the August window closed.

[TitanTrigger]

I've not named any players. Last summer we offloaded 4 of our 6 biggest goal threats off of the wage bill. We bought in 1 player unproven in the Premier League  to replace them. Our season was over when the August window closed.

And we scored an extra 24 goals, seems like the right thing to do

[CraigDS]

I've not named any players. Last summer we offloaded 4 of our 6 biggest goal threats off of the wage bill. We bought in 1 player unproven in the Premier League  to replace them. Our season was over when the August window closed.

And both BR and Ayre said that was a mistake and have moved to make sure it doesn't happen again.

And lets be honest, Bellamy, Maxi and Kuyt wanted out (Kuyt even went before Rodgers came in I think). The Carroll issue was the biggest mistake, but as said they've admitted that and moved to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Eeyore]

And we scored an extra 24 goals, seems like the right thing to do

Once our hopes of top 4 or top 6 had been extinguished. We made a sprint finish to a marathon after spending the first half of the race tying our shoelaces.

[naka]

 

Thinking the same.

[CraigDS]

Once our hopes of top 4 or top 6 had been extinguished. We made a sprint finish to a marathon after spending the first half of the race tying our shoelaces.

After 23 games in 11/12 we'd scored 28 goals, last season we'd scored 40 (same as Spurs, 5 less than second place City).

Hardly tying our shoelaces.

[killer-heels]

I am never that bothered with all this wages and net spend discussions. However, I do agree with the principle that players should be earning what they deserve and relative to the teams performance.

I know Reina has been a good player for us and Skrtel played well for a time but for a team that has been outside the top 4 (and by a big points margin) for several years, as well as only winning 1 trophy over a number of years, some of these players have been rewarded far too well. Thats even without mentioning the likes of Downing, Cole, Aquilani and co that didn't give us much value.

Its the right approach. Rewarding the key starters who perform well. If and when we get back to challenging, then we can start giving 3rd and 4th choice centre backs 70k a week!

[DangerScouse]

And we scored an extra 24 goals, seems like the right thing to do

Won nothing and made a pathetic effort at champions league qualification. Could have done with some of those vastly experienced players in the games against the top 4 in which we failed to win any games and had to make do with 17, 18 and 19 year olds to fill the void. It was a shocking decision not to replace them adequately. The fact we scored more goals is irrellevant. I've no issue paying squad players less but we've fucking no hope of getting to where we want to be if we aren't going to use those additional resources to try and secure some top talents (plural).

[CraigDS]

Won nothing and made a pathetic effort at champions league qualification. Could have done with some of those vastly experienced players in the games against the top 4 in which we failed to win any games and had to make do with 17, 18 and 19 year olds to fill the void. It was a shocking decision not to replace them adequately. The fact we scored more goals is irrellevant. I've no issue paying squad players less but we've fucking no hope of getting to where we want to be if we aren't going to use those additional resources to try and secure some top talents (plural).

We spent £30m net. Closer to £50m if want to include Jan.

The issue was not spending to replace them, it was not spending it wisely enough. Hopefully that has now been sorted.

[Alf]

And we scored an extra 24 goals, seems like the right thing to do

A lot of those goals were scored or made by Coutinho & Sturridge who we signed in January.

And both BR and Ayre said that was a mistake and have moved to make sure it doesn't happen again.

And lets be honest, Bellamy, Maxi and Kuyt wanted out (Kuyt even went before Rodgers came in I think). The Carroll issue was the biggest mistake, but as said they've admitted that and moved to make sure it doesn't happen again.

When John Henry came in he talked about they'd grown the RedSox by increasing the wage bill and I think we are all in agreement we wasn't getting value for money. Do you think we'll try and climb the table like that or do you think the focus is on increasing the capacity?

[CraigDS]

A lot of those goals were scored or made by Coutinho & Sturridge who we signed in January.

As I've just posted up, we were 12 up 23 games in, before they signed.

When John Henry came in he talked about they'd grown the RedSox by increasing the wage bill and I think we are all in agreement we wasn't getting value for money. Do you think we'll try and climb the table like that or do you think the focus is on increasing the capacity?

We are spending pretty well, and even with wage cuts as we've had we still have a much bigger wage bill than Spurs.

We'll climb the table by spending wisely and allocating the wage bill properly.

[Johnnyboy1973]

Club was always run successfully until it was sold to the yanks (1st lot). 

Moores was a fucking muppet and the sale was the cherry on the shitcake he had baking since becoming chairman.

[Fordy]

Continue like we're doing and we will be a mid table club for a long time.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Craig. Dunno how you do it mate. I see you as the sole survivor in a zombie flick. Holed out in a bunker armed only with your ppm action Remington of reason.

Problem is no matter how many posts you blast, waves and waves of the same old shit keeps breaking across the shores of RAWK.