Transfer Window Speculation

[psl]

They have never spent money without selling. It's really very charitable to consider that the only reason they are not now doing so is the pandemic.

[Earl Hafler]

Some clubs will claim they had to sell due to diminished revenues but weren't going to be fleeced. Buyers will ask for an extension 

[Earl Hafler]

3 minutes ago, psl said:

They have never spent money without selling. It's really very charitable to consider that the only reason they are not now doing so is the pandemic.

Which is the real test of their ownership because our best players don't want to move.

There's no Suarez / Coutinho type looking for the next step because there isn't one - we're the best team in Europe with a genuinely special manager

 

[Sion]

16 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

They could have to sell someone to balance their books to pass FFP. Like say, Pogba and then not be able to replace him.

 

 

So let's do that then. 

We can loan Wilson Grujic and Co again then sell next summer when there's a better market to recoup the money spent now. 

[Hightown Phil]

10 minutes ago, Sion said:

So let's do that then. 

We can loan Wilson Grujic and Co again then sell next summer when there's a better market to recoup the money spent now. 

Well yeah, that’s part of it too, is the market going to recover? I’m not saying it won’t, I genuinely don’t know. If we get to the autumn and things go bad again and next season just doesn’t happen, which yes is unlikely and yes it’s extreme to mention it, but to say it’s an impossibility is just wrong, where does everyone go from there? 

[The_Adder]

FSG are here to make money, which is s*** when we look around at all these top players who you just know would prefer to play for us and Klopp right now.

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

58 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

They could have to sell someone to balance their books to pass FFP. Like say, Pogba and then not be able to replace him.

 

 

If that happens then they can sell Sancho and be no worse off than if they hadn’t bought him.

58 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

They could have to sell someone to balance their books to pass FFP. Like say, Pogba and then not be able to replace him.

 

 

If that happens then they can sell Sancho and be no worse off than if they hadn’t bought him.

[Hightown Phil]

Just now, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

If that happens then they can sell Sancho and be no worse off than if they hadn’t bought him.

Would almost certainly be for a loss though wouldn’t it?

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

1 minute ago, Hightown Phil said:

Would almost certainly be for a loss though wouldn’t it?

Why almost certainly?

[kop205]

Basically the worst case consequences of spending the money are more extreme than the best case consequences, but are also far, far less likely to happen.

But then the whole FSG algorithm seems to eschew anything that could really carry any risk, which is sound in that we won't go bust but doesn't lend itself to consolidating dominance for any length of time or even provide a guarantee that we'll be perennial challengers.

To be fair, it is maybe only City's Lance Armstrong model that can give such things but it would be nice to see us doing all we can to give ourselves the best chance of extending our current pre-eminence for a bit longer.

With them as owners there will inevitably be another significant period where we don't win it so I'd like us to see us win it as many times as possible before that kicks in.  Make hay while the sun shines and that.

What Klopp has done is remarkable in any era but even more so given what all sorts of piles of s***e have spent whilst he's been in post. He's a bonafide genius and unless their model can deliver another one when he goes then they won't be looking so clever. In so far as they look good, it is because of him.

[Hightown Phil]

Just now, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

Why almost certainly?

Because the market would be weaker which would mean they’d get less, they’d be in a position where they needed to move the player on, and they’d have to pay up the remainder of his contract unless he asked to leave.

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

8 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

Because the market would be weaker which would mean they’d get less, they’d be in a position where they needed to move the player on, and they’d have to pay up the remainder of his contract unless he asked to leave.

Edit: bored of myself

Edited August 3, 2020 by Kvarme Ate My Food

[anfieldgaz]

Not to build on the squad whilst at the top is extremely niave. Not sure if its FSG Klopp or both. Others around us are improving. As good sorry excellent as this squad is we simply need to add to it. 

It only takes one of the front 3 to have an injury and were screwed.

I feel that's the area we need to add too....you can't say improve as they are world class but not to get anyone is worrying. 

 

[Hightown Phil]

Just now, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

Why are you assuming the market would be weaker? The fact that they need to sell wouldn’t reduce the price if there was more than one bidder. And you’re saying you have to pay up a player’s whole contract if you sell him without him requesting a transfer? Are you sure?

Was working to an assumption that if they needed to sell them there’d been a change in the wider conditions that means everyone has less money which is what you’d expect from this situation if it arose, no? 

My understanding of contracts is that players have the right to what’s on their contract unless they either agree to write it off or request a transfer. If the club decides they want to sell them they can’t just not pay what’s left on it because they don’t want the player any longer. 

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

Just now, Hightown Phil said:

Was working to an assumption that if they needed to sell them there’d been a change in the wider conditions that means everyone has less money which is what you’d expect from this situation if it arose, no? 

My understanding of contracts is that players have the right to what’s on their contract unless they either agree to write it off or request a transfer. If the club decides they want to sell them they can’t just not pay what’s left on it because they don’t want the player any longer. 

On the latter point, if you sell them to another club and that new club is gonna pay them more or the same, there’s no way on earth you have to pay up their contract. 

[Hightown Phil]

1 minute ago, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

On the latter point, if you sell them to another club and that new club is gonna pay them more or the same, there’s no way on earth you have to pay up their contract. 

Why not? They aren’t taking over the contract, you’re terminating a contract and they’re entering in to a new separate one. There aren’t many contracts you can terminate without at least some form of financial penalty unless both parties agree to terminate it. 
 

[Rory Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, psl said:

They have never spent money without selling. It's really very charitable to consider that the only reason they are not now doing so is the pandemic.

Our net spend in the last 10 years in £409m but funded by the growth in revenue. The increase in revenue is 52% Media (aka TV) and 48% commercial/match day which is more in FSGs control to improve ie our transfer spend has been financed by improved organic revenue generation. 
 

FSGs funds in the club increased twice in 2013 (player purchases) and 2016 (stadium expansion). Otherwise, their loans have been reducing. 
 

Their loan is c.£80m against an equity value of the club at £245m. For reference, in 2011, their loan was £50m but the equity value of the club was only £45m. 
 

With that backdrop, they’re not buying Alisson and VVD without selling Coutinho so I think that’s fair but otherwise we’ve operated inside a budget - with that budget improved each year as revenue has grown year-in-year. 

[mick]

11 minutes ago, anfieldgaz said:

Not to build on the squad whilst at the top is extremely niave. Not sure if its FSG Klopp or both. Others around us are improving. As good sorry excellent as this squad is we simply need to add to it. 

It only takes one of the front 3 to have an injury and were screwed.

I feel that's the area we need to add too....you can't say improve as they are world class but not to get anyone is worrying. 

 

My fear is similar to this. Klopp has been in genius mode for the last 2 seasons. Trying to do that again with exact same players and no real reinforcements is s huge challenge.

anyway we will see how we go over next month. 

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

18 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

Why not? They aren’t taking over the contract, you’re terminating a contract and they’re entering in to a new separate one. There aren’t many contracts you can terminate without at least some form of financial penalty unless both parties agree to terminate it. 
 

Because the player, ultimately, does agree to leave. You might pay them something to sweeten the deal sure. But the entirety of their contract?

Like do you think Newcastle paid up all of Andy Carroll’s contract when he came to us?

[Earl Hafler]

45 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

Because the market would be weaker which would mean they’d get less, they’d be in a position where they needed to move the player on, and they’d have to pay up the remainder of his contract unless he asked to leave.

How do you sell a player who doesn't want to be sold? 

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

When Leeds had to firesale a load of players, they topped up their salaries at new clubs, they didn’t pay out every penny of their contract for the remainder of its term.

[Hightown Phil]

Just now, Earl Hafler said:

How do you sell a player who doesn't want to be sold? 

You financially incentivise him.

1 minute ago, Kvarme Ate My Food said:

When Leeds had to firesale a load of players, they topped up their salaries at new clubs, they didn’t pay out every penny of their contract for the remainder of its term.

I’m not saying a player would get all of what they’re entitled to, just that they are entitled to it and it would be a consideration you’d have to make, and why it wouldn’t just be as simple as selling the player to get back to the same point. They're entitled to it and they’d agree a settlement but it would be more than £0. 

[Earl Hafler]

We've drifted out of the FSG Venn diagram , anyway 

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

11 minutes ago, Hightown Phil said:

You financially incentivise him.

I’m not saying a player would get all of what they’re entitled to, just that they are entitled to it and it would be a consideration you’d have to make, and why it wouldn’t just be as simple as selling the player to get back to the same point. They're entitled to it and they’d agree a settlement but it would be more than £0. 

That’s quite a move from “they’d have to pay up the remainder of his contract” but cool.

[Tobes Rafa]

37 minutes ago, mick said:

My fear is similar to this. Klopp has been in genius mode for the last 2 seasons. Trying to do that again with exact same players and no real reinforcements is s huge challenge.

anyway we will see how we go over next month. 

I agree. I may be in a minority when I say I don't think we were actually as good this season as last season. Seems a mad thought given we won everything but I think we were more efficient this season rather then effective. We are nearly impossible to beat but I don't think we hit the heights of the attacking fluidity we saw in the prior season. If we continue on the trend, without fresh legs and fresh ideas, next season could be very difficult.