Getting Aquilani back when his loan expires

[Frosty Jack]

Unlikely to happen, but imagine how rich we'd look in attack if we did?

 

He could play in any of 4 positions behind Torres in this kind of system.

 

f*** Joe Coles wages off and bring him back in the summer, if it doesn't work out, sell him on after a season.

[Andy-oh-six]

Letting him go on loan so we could to afford to bring in media darling Cole is proving to be one hell of a bad bit of business.

[sangria]

Letting him go on loan so we could to afford to bring in media darling Cole is proving to be one hell of a bad bit of business.

 

FOP.

[Davvo]

For some time I've been of the opinion that Aquilani was loaned out to get his wages off the books, whilst retaining his 'book value', an accounting play that effectively makes us better off by around £5 million pound ahead of the takeover. What I don't understand about the (in my opinion mildly fraudulent) accounting in football, is whether signing Cole for 'free' results in us being able to give him a 'book value' of whatever we want (say £5 million for argument's sake), or whether it is infact zero.

 

If it's zero, then the whole logic of shipping out Aquilani is blown out of the water, given that Cole isn't fit to lace his boots. If Cole does have an arbitrary book value, then it justifies the financial reasons for doing the deals in the Summer, but also in theory makes it sensible, and feasible, to reverse such deals now we have owners who are not looking to bleed us of every penny we have.

 

 

There's no doubt Purslow had a remit to make us look leaner and more attractive to buyers (loaning of Aquilani being one such example of financial wizardry), but now these guys can see what they really have, you'd hope we could try and undo a little of the pre-buyout damage.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Davvo

[sangria]

For some time I've been of the opinion that Aquilani was loaned out to get his wages off the books, whilst retaining his 'book value', an accounting play that effectively makes us better off by around £5 million pound ahead of the takeover. What I don't understand about the (in my opinion mildly fraudulent) accounting in football, is whether signing Cole for 'free' results in us being able to give him a 'book value' of whatever we want (say £5 million for argument's sake), or whether it is infact zero.

 

If it's zero, then the whole logic of shipping out Aquilani is blown out of the water, given that Cole isn't fit to lace his boots. If Cole does have an arbitrary book value, then it justifies the financial reasons for doing the deals in the Summer, but also in theory makes it sensible, and feasible, to reverse such deals now we have owners who are not looking to bleed us of every penny we have.

 

 

There's no doubt Purslow had a remit to make us look leaner and more attractive to buyers (loaning of Aquilani being one such example of financial wizardry), but now these guys can see what they really have, you'd hope we could try and undo a little of the pre-buyout damage.

 

Cole is on 90k/wk. I think Aquilani was on 80k/wk. Disregarding agents fees and signing on fees, exchanging Aquilani for Cole costs Liverpool 500k for the season. Including sundry fees, the exchange probably cost Liverpool upwards of 5m for the season.

[Maldini]

Cole is on 90k/wk. I think Aquilani was on 80k/wk. Disregarding agents fees and signing on fees, exchanging Aquilani for Cole costs Liverpool 500k for the season. Including sundry fees, the exchange probably cost Liverpool upwards of 5m for the season.

 

you can add the £7m loss we'll take onto that. Add the Insua/Konchesky/Kacanicklic/Dalla Valle clusterf*** in along with paying off Rafa, getting in Hodgson and we spent nearly £25m to lower our quality in two positions, drastically reduce the quality of the manager and lose two good prospects.

 

F*ck off Purslow.

[Davvo]

Cole is on 90k/wk. I think Aquilani was on 80k/wk. Disregarding agents fees and signing on fees, exchanging Aquilani for Cole costs Liverpool 500k for the season. Including sundry fees, the exchange probably cost Liverpool upwards of 5m for the season.

 

Sorry, but I'm talking in terms of how football clubs do their accounts. Aquilani's value last summer, on our books, was approx £12.5M, and woul dhave remained so throughout this season, whether he is here or not. If we are able to attach a book value to Cole, despite us effectively not spending a fee on him, then in terms of the books, it's a good deal to the club.

 

What I don't know, is how a free transfer is listed in a club's books, in terms of asset value.

 

That's ignoring the fact neither us knows what weekly wage these guys are on. Agents fees and signing on fees, would not have got to £5M, not even close.

 

you can add the £7m loss we'll take onto that. Add the Insua/Konchesky/Kacanicklic/Dalla Valle clusterf*** in along with paying off Rafa, getting in Hodgson and we spent nearly £25m to lower our quality in two positions, drastically reduce the quality of the manager and lose two good prospects.

 

F*ck off Purslow.

 

 

Not on our books Maldini, that's not how it works. It's corrupt if you ask me, but selling Aquilani for £7m less than we bought him, would not result in a simple £7M loss.

[guernseygareth]

f*** off Purslow - christ I blame the invasion of Poland, let alone the fear that Torres may be dead to me, on the smary, know nothing t***.

[Maldini]

Sorry, but I'm talking in terms of how football clubs do their accounts. Aquilani's value last summer, on our books, was approx £12.5M, and woul dhave remained so throughout this season, whether he is here or not. If we are able to attach a book value to Cole, despite us effectively not spending a fee on him, then in terms of the books, it's a good deal to the club.

 

What I don't know, is how a free transfer is listed in a club's books, in terms of asset value.

 

That's ignoring the fact neither us knows what weekly wage these guys are on. Agents fees and signing on fees, would not have got to £5M, not even close.

 

 

 

 

Not on our books Maldini, that's not how it works. It's corrupt if you ask me, but selling Aquilani for £7m less than we bought him, would not result in a simple £7M loss.

 

Maybe not on the books, but in real terms we had £20m, we spent it on him. 24 months later we'll get £13m for him.

[Davvo]

Maybe not on the books, but in real terms we had £20m, we spent it on him. 24 months later we'll get £13m for him.

 

I don't disagree. What I'm talking about is the actual accounting, and how the books look to buyers. It's a sham if you ask me, but the Aquilani loan definitely improved the health of our accounts, and that's why it happened. You can forget the fees spent, they are to all intents and purposes irrelevant.

[McBain]

I always felt Aquilani had something last season, in among the injuries and struggles with the physical side of our game. But with Raul here i dont see a need for both.

 

What we need is a Vieira to play alongside our Manu Petit

[_00_deathscar]

I always felt Aquilani had something last season, in among the injuries and struggles with the physical side of our game. But with Raul here i dont see a need for both.

 

What we need is a Vieira to play alongside our Manu Petit

 

 

So we need someone black then.

 

 

[Cam]

Does bringing back the Aqua-Man become more necessary with the imminent treachery of Torres? Sure, he plays in a different position but with need skill and ability on the ball.

[Crazy Horse]

Has anyone asked Aquilani what he wants to do next season? Can't imagine he wants to play for Liverpool.

[Frosty Jack]

Does bringing back the Aqua-Man become more necessary with the imminent treachery of Torres? Sure, he plays in a different position but with need skill and ability on the ball.

 

-------------Suarez------------

----Maxi---Aqua---Raul----

------Gerrard--Lucas--------

[John am Rhein]

I don't disagree. What I'm talking about is the actual accounting, and how the books look to buyers. It's a sham if you ask me, but the Aquilani loan definitely improved the health of our accounts, and that's why it happened. You can forget the fees spent, they are to all intents and purposes irrelevant.

 

if it's a sham (as it surely is) then buyers must know it's a sham

[Davvo]

if it's a sham (as it surely is) then buyers must know it's a sham

 

Not necessarily. Anyone involved in the sale of a business, knows that corners are cut, and every effort is made to have the books look as healthy as possible. The player was moved out for financial reasons, it made the books look good, there's no false accounting involved, so nothing for a buyer to discover in due diligence. They would also see that selling Aquilani for the agreed fee this Summer, would represent a profit on our books, so again that is a positive for someone buying the club, from a financial point of view.

[Frosty Jack]

Alternatively they could give us Momo + Cash.

[madaboutlfc]

Has anyone asked Aquilani what he wants to do next season? Can't imagine he wants to play for Liverpool.

he said he wants to stay at juve..

[_00_deathscar]

Not necessarily. Anyone involved in the sale of a business, knows that corners are cut, and every effort is made to have the books look as healthy as possible. The player was moved out for financial reasons, it made the books look good, there's no false accounting involved, so nothing for a buyer to discover in due diligence. They would also see that selling Aquilani for the agreed fee this Summer, would represent a profit on our books, so again that is a positive for someone buying the club, from a financial point of view.

 

I'm no accountant. How does that work?

[Sion]

How has Krasić been doing at Juve? I always thought he looked quality at CSKA.