Liverpool owners cap transfer spending at £20m-a-season for next five years

[Chris]

Limited transfer budget is fine when building the stadium and perfectly reasonable. The fact is now though we spent **** all this summer so they could pay off their debts, it was nothing to do with the stadium which will never happen under these two anyway.

[Rich]

Thats completely irrelevant. These dont get points just because they're not David Moores, all of them are rotten as owners.

And whats the amazing improvement now? Our great marketing that goes straight on to paying off their debts? Wow, cheers G and H, the stuff of legends right there.

I dont want an Abramovich, just what we were promised and sold for but that will never happen because we've been had.

You're failing to realise my point.

In an ideal, but realistic, world how should our club be run? And by who?

You're busy complaining about the current owners but you seem to have not thought about any alternatives whatsoever.

The facts as I see them:

Regardless of whether the debt to buy the club was placed on the club or not, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, the purchase of the club would need to be paid for, regardless of owners - unless we're going for the pie-in-the-sky billionaire scenario again. Any of the consortia that have been interested in buying the club would have used bank money to fund the move, that debt needs paying back. End of.

Under Moores there might not have been any debt on the books that had been used to fund the purchase but its was clear that the hierarchy was woefully out of its depth in the commercial world. Time and again we saw bad business decisions, from a Chairman too in love with the club.

Credit Crunch bites. It happened and that's a fact. Whether you believe in the leverage model or not its been used around the world to buy companies and to fund major projects. Our two owners couldn't have foreseen the crunch and its of no surprise that the stadium hasn't been built. Gutting but imagine the interest rates from a bank for £300m in the current climate - 10-15%?! Shudder to think.

Commercially the club has progressed significantly since the change of ownership. Number of new partners and a new shirt sponsor are just some of the headline figures.

Now I have no love of H&G I think some of their decisions and bickering have been pathetic and damaging to such an amazing institution as LFC however all this bleating at the way the club is run isn't realistic unless you can propose a better alternative.

[EwarWoo]

What about last summer? Were you pleased with that?

No. Damn pissed off, but we spent more than the average across the top 4 so I'm willing to assume it's the market rather than having a pity party.

The difference between us and the rest of the top four is that if the need something they can go out and buy someone in, we can't.

Ah, K, so when we don't spend it's because we can't, when they don't spend it's because they don't want to? Not looking at things in a negative light at all are we?

[Scratch]

Limited transfer budget is fine when building the stadium and perfectly reasonable. The fact is now though we spent **** all this summer so they could pay off their debts, it was nothing to do with the stadium which will never happen under these two anyway.

Is this one of them FACTS that you were referring to?

[Pablo]

lest we never forget JURGEN KLINNSMAN!?!?

[Norbs]

What about the first one? What is wrong about that? I think that we can't compete with a 20m. budget that includes all contract renewals, for example I think that Mascher didn't get his contract in the summer because of that. And I think that since every summer we have renewals we need to sell a big name to fund other buys.

I'm not going to shout at you or Scratch but can you honestly say we are going to compete with a budget like last summer for the next five years?

The bit in bold I'd like an answer to if at all possible.

Yes, if we're playing on a reasonably level playing field.

[Chris]

Regardless of whether the debt to buy the club was placed on the club or not, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, the purchase of the club would need to be paid for, regardless of owners - unless we're going for the pie-in-the-sky billionaire scenario again. Any of the consortia that have been interested in buying the club would have used bank money to fund the move, that debt needs paying back. End of.

Why cant they pay their own debt? I didnt see Randy Lerner plunging Villa into debt to pay for his purchase. I could list 10s and 10s of others aswell. We are basically paying them to buy our club, it stinks.

The credit crunch is a convenient excuse for them, "a spade will be in the ground within 60 days", what, a credit crunch suddenly loomed on them over night and they had no idea? Yeah right.

[barnes10]

Limited transfer budget is fine when building the stadium and perfectly reasonable. The fact is now though we spent **** all this summer so they could pay off their debts, it was nothing to do with the stadium which will never happen under these two anyway.

as i said, a rational fan will see.

[Chris]

Is this one of them FACTS that you were referring to?

No, we've secretly got £50m worth of signings done, but havent announced them yet. And theres actually no debt afterall, its all media lies by the nasty journo's and the accounts we released are fakes

[Norbs]

i dont see how this enforce capping of transfer/squad spend was going to be avoided.

if we were building the stadium now, we'd be in exactly the situation arsenal are in - limiting spending to pay down debts we already have.

now we're preparing our finances to be in a position to borrow to build the stadium once finance is available. i.e. limiting spending now to have finances healthy enough to borrow once the markets ease up.

both paths require careful management of the key costs and essentially lead to the same state in say 10-15 years: a new stadium and manageable debts. borrow more, now at higher rates but get more income from a stadium now or, borrow at lower rates and therefore a cheaper stadium but defer the extra income. the stadium decision is spot on. the transfer limits are part of that decision unfortunately. its not like we're miles away either. 100 mill net over 5 years is what rafa had in his first 5 years. Add on a bit for both improved commercial income and the fact that outgoing players will earn more (compared to the sh1te he inherited) and we'll be fine.

and no i dont love / like or employed by the yanks. They are a pair of lying, cheating, moneyhungry, businessmen cunts but any rational fan will see that what they are doing is for the long term good of the club which is afterall an investment they dont want to see fail.

[EwarWoo]

Is this one of them FACTS that you were referring to?

The threads full of Facts

[Chris]

as i said, a rational fan will see.

So you agree you were wrong? Cool

[Norbs]

So you agree you were wrong? Cool

I know you are so what am I?

[Daniel mote]

Oh, cos Barrett and Kay wrote it, that makes it true...get a grip boy, they are only reporting on what they've been told, and who knows what is true and who isn't...but because it's bad, it must be true, otherwise the whole fabric of reality will come crumbling down.

It's nice that people like me can make you sick, you must lead a shallow, sheltered life.

Oh, give me some of the FACTS by the way, the ones that make our clubs postition so unstable? Facts mind you, not tabloid speculation, or internet rumour, or SOS bollocks.

Talk about burying your head in the sand... No i forgot everything is rosy with these two clowns in charge!!!

[Fierce]

You're failing to realise my point.

In an ideal, but realistic, world how should our club be run? And by who?

You're busy complaining about the current owners but you seem to have not thought about any alternatives whatsoever.

The facts as I see them:

Regardless of whether the debt to buy the club was placed on the club or not, it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, the purchase of the club would need to be paid for, regardless of owners - unless we're going for the pie-in-the-sky billionaire scenario again. Any of the consortia that have been interested in buying the club would have used bank money to fund the move, that debt needs paying back. End of.

Under Moores there might not have been any debt on the books that had been used to fund the purchase but its was clear that the hierarchy was woefully out of its depth in the commercial world. Time and again we saw bad business decisions, from a Chairman too in love with the club.

Credit Crunch bites. It happened and that's a fact. Whether you believe in the leverage model or not its been used around the world to buy companies and to fund major projects. Our two owners couldn't have foreseen the crunch and its of no surprise that the stadium hasn't been built. Gutting but imagine the interest rates from a bank for £300m in the current climate - 10-15%?! Shudder to think.

Commercially the club has progressed significantly since the change of ownership. Number of new partners and a new shirt sponsor are just some of the headline figures.

Now I have no love of H&G I think some of their decisions and bickering have been pathetic and damaging to such an amazing institution as LFC however all this bleating at the way the club is run isn't realistic unless you can propose a better alternative.

Chris - read this. And then read it again. Then once more, just in case it didn't sink in