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

[BG1973]

The 20million was based on a revenue of 14.6million from Carlsberg, so by getting and increase to £20million from SC, that's and increase straight away. Lets not forget that report is from March 2009, before the refinancing, the reduction of debt by £60million and the new sponsership deals etc, so it is completely feasible to expect that circumstances may change.

You didn't answer the question so we'll take that as a no.

Somebody summed it up earlier by saying whenever united and chelsea have a problem they can fix it, the money is always there. we've always had playing staff weaknesses and we've never been able to fully fix it. We lost the league last season because Torres missed two many games and we didn't have a replacement. Did we address that problem? Did we bollocks because we couldn't afford to. And that sucks.

Right or wrong we won't be winning the title anytime soon under these restrictions.

[The_weatherman]

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.

But our owners said that we had spent all of our budget, so it was never an option to buy more, despite our sales off setting our buys in terms of transfer fees. Purslow said the pot was emptied this summer.

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?

Well, sort of. We know Chelsea can spend more than they did, and Man Utd. are being linked with players in january, I believe that they have money, Fergie is just being an arrogant cock trying to win the title with minimum of adjustments. City are City and Spurs are outspending us by far, especially if one would factor in the wages in their transfer budget.

[Daniel mote]

Has anyone on here got any information on the mess corrinthians were left in after hicks left. Pretty sure he promised a new stadium etc.. But never delivered and just loaded them with debt, cumilating in there relegation from the top divisions!!

[Norbs]

You didn't answer the question so we'll take that as a no.

How can he answer a hypothetical question that doesn't take in to account what the other challengers will have to spend?

It was a daft question that couldn't be answered

[The_weatherman]

The 20million was based on a revenue of 14.6million from Carlsberg, so by getting and increase to £20million from SC, that's and increase straight away. Lets not forget that report is from March 2009, before the refinancing, the reduction of debt by £60million and the new sponsership deals etc, so it is completely feasible to expect that circumstances may change.

They budgeted for the next five years, it may rise a bit but it still has to rise a lot to amount to what the fans consider a 20 m. transfer budget.

And no, I don't see this changing much, Hicks said himself that sports teams don't need to be winning, the fans will continue to be loyal, he is sucking the fans dry and isn't even very secretive about it.

[Daniel mote]

They budgeted for the next five years, it may rise a bit but it still has to rise a lot to amount to what the fans consider a 20 m. transfer budget.

And no, I don't see this changing much, Hicks said himself that sports teams don't need to be winning, the fans will continue to be loyal, he is sucking the fans dry and isn't even very secretive about it.

[dom9]

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]

Has anyone on here got any information on the mess corrinthians were left in after hicks left. Pretty sure he promised a new stadium etc.. But never delivered and just loaded them with debt, cumilating in there relegation from the top divisions!!

He would never do anything like that, he's a brilliant owner.

[Baracus]

This is fine, we'll just save the 20million - a season and spend the 100m all on Savvy

[The_weatherman]

Here it is, he said this about the Rangers but that mentality applies full well to us.

Tom Hikcs: You don't even have to win a championship every year to draw the fans. You just have to show you're really trying.

How you can defend this man is beyond me! It's plain to see what his motives are and that he doesn't give a damn about Liverpool on the pitch.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/01/08/archive/main69.shtml

[Chris]

Here it is, he said this about the Rangers but that mentality applies full well to us.

Tom Hikcs: You don't even have to win a championship every year to draw the fans. You just have to show you're really trying.

How you can defend this man is beyond me! It's plain to see what his motives are and that he doesn't give a damn about Liverpool on the pitch.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/...e/main69.shtml

Yep, and a few media releases every now and again about how great things are and ****ing idiots lap up every word. Its sickening.

The man and his partner are vermin who we need rid of asap.

[BG1973]

How can he answer a hypothetical question that doesn't take in to account what the other challengers will have to spend?

It was a daft question that couldn't be answered

that's a daft reply.

Bar arsenal they will all have what they need to spend in order to challenge.

We won't.

I edited my previous reply btw.

[The_weatherman]

Yep, and a few media releases every now and again about how great things are and ****ing idiots lap up every word. Its sickening.

Not quite as worked up as you though

[Scratch]

Some "facts" from the SOS meeting with Purslow

1. the total debt is "only" £245m for the whole group (that will be verifiable in due course)

2. the owners put in £60m of equity (that doesn't require interest payments) - again verifiable

3. He's not there to sell the Club or part - it will be interesting how he explains this if part of the Club is "sold" with new investment. I, for one, won't be impressed if he draws a technical distinction between "investment" and "sale".

4. And finally, he made it very clear that RBS played no role in his appointment, "to his knowledge". I wonder if the last bit was important?


1 and 2 are pertinent to this discussion...the debt is significantly lower than it was, and Gillett and Hicks put their own equity forward, not leeched from the club coffers.

Of course, Purslow could be lying, but i'm sure the facts will reveal themselves gradually.

[The_weatherman]

that's a daft reply.

Bar arsenal they will all have what they need to spend in order to challenge.

We won't.

I edited my previous reply btw.

Good edit btw