Jump to content

SME

Members
  • Content Count

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK

Previous Fields

  • Team
    Liverpool

Recent Profile Visitors

136 profile views
  1. Could be the case that he's currently the most saleable to get us what's needed to buy Thiago so we sell him and keep Origi?
  2. No, I'm sure they want to win everything, but I'm not sure how much they'd change if we were consistently getting top 4 comfortably but weren't winning things
  3. But is what they'd consider the risk of buying players now to try to win things worth it to them when they feel they can comfortably get top 4 at low risk? Is winning stuff the aim or a bonus?
  4. Don't think Roberston counts as home grown either.
  5. Everything I've seen, examples from SwissRamble and PriceOfFootball, says it's straight line as the norm, indeed the latter has an example of Derby County being criticised by not using straight line - http://priceoffootball.com/football-transfers-and-creative-accounting-protect-me-from-what-i-want/ Though if declining balance was used would suggest that financially we'd be better off as much of the transfer costs would have been offset by now with last season's limited activity meaning limited amounts brought forward this season.
  6. Amortisation is recalculated when contracts are extended, so players signed more than 5 years ago probably still have some value assigned to them. It does also mean that for a VVD as a £75m player initially on the books at £15m per year for 5 years who signs a new 5 year contract after 2 years then he'll be amortised at £9m per year as the outstanding £45m is spread over the 5 years of the new contract.
  7. A good chunk of it has probably gone / been set aside for upgrading Kirkby.
  8. Also aparently the money from overseas sales is now split based on position rather than equally so thats why it's a record amount
  9. Did they inject equity in 2016? I believe they had to to meet FFP rules at one point, but stadium spend has been met via commercial loans - and not interest free loan either as the likes of the Echo liked to hint at. These loans also have a relatively short payback period of five years as well don't they?
  10. By not investing in the squad for two seasons means we will need to replace those five in a shorter period making it more difficult and risky. Werner at £50m would only hit the books at £10m per year over a 5 year contract. If it was worth waiting for Virgil for example as he was the first / best / only option then why not make money available to get Werner if he was also considered the best option? And there are ways to make that money available.... Sell some of the loan players, extend payments on main stand, pay for Kirkby over a longer period etc
  11. SME

    FSG Watch...

    If the money they put in was allocated to infrastructure projects - such as paying for the main stand and the Kirkby training ground - then the money currently spent on them via loan repayments and coming out of profits could instead be used for transfers and wages. This wouldn't impact FFP as infrastructure spend is exempt. They could even take a longer term view of the repayments for the main stand rather than having it paid over within 5 years without having to put any money in at all. So it would be possible for owners to inject funds if they wanted to / had the means to.
  12. Is a doubt for tomorrow, injured ankle caused by a fan running into the pitch and sliding into him.
  13. Who's 3rd choice keeper? We didn't offer Lonergan a contract did we?
  14. I know but what's the difference between a player amortised at £15m a year who leaves on a Bosman at the end of his contract and one you pay £15m a year on loan? Yes potential re-sale obviously but you could also say more risk with a purchase.
×
×
  • Create New...