Jürgen Klopp

[Fierce]

If our net spend is about $15 million per year how would that be spending beyond the revenue generated? Maybe it's just an issue of the dividends they pay themselves that's preventing higher spending?

Net spend and revenue. Where else would the money be then?

Have you looked at our accounts? There's no point making yourself angry at the owners if you haven't done your research

They are not gazillionaires with stacks of readies that they don't need. They are a business. We might not like that because it means we have to spend within the confines of what we earn as a business, but that's a world away from your assertion that they're all sat there draining the club of all its riches on a beach in Honalulu

We 'spend' all of the profit that we make. From our last set of audited accounts (freely available to all) we made a loss of £9.5m. There were no monies taken out of the club other than those you would expect, including the scheduled part repayment of the £200m (working cap) and £73m (stadium) loans

They are running the club as a healthy business that is not saddled with unreasonable debt, and we are / were spending at the absolute limit that our finances allow. Covid hit us hard, like all clubs that aren't owned by tycoons of some sort

For example - when we won the league, our matchday rev was £3.6m, down from £71m the year before.

I'm not saying they deserve a free ride, because a football club is not the same as an ordinary business*; but its simply untrue that they are taking money out of the club


*even an ordinary business has to take risks and 'speculate to accumulate' at times. The argument could therefore be "spend more, win more, earn more" but the problem is that spending more does not guarantee more wins

they don't take dividends, it's all reinvested in the club. just not all in the playing staff.

[RichC]

Have you looked at our accounts? There's no point making yourself angry at the owners if you haven't done your research

They are not gazillionaires with stacks of readies that they don't need. They are a business. We might not like that because it means we have to spend within the confines of what we earn as a business, but that's a world away from your assertion that they're all sat there draining the club of all its riches on a beach in Honalulu

We 'spend' all of the profit that we make. From our last set of audited accounts (freely available to all) we made a loss of £9.5m. There were no monies taken out of the club other than those you would expect, including the scheduled part repayment of the £200m (working cap) and £73m (stadium) loans

They are running the club as a healthy business that is not saddled with unreasonable debt, and we are / were spending at the absolute limit that our finances allow. Covid hit us hard, like all clubs that aren't owned by tycoons of some sort

For example - when we won the league, our matchday rev was £3.6m, down from £71m the year before.

I'm not saying they deserve a free ride, because a football club is not the same as an ordinary business*; but its simply untrue that they are taking money out of the club


*even an ordinary business has to take risks and 'speculate to accumulate' at times. The argument could therefore be "spend more, win more, earn more" but the problem is that spending more does not guarantee more wins

Good, sensible post.

[Tatterdemalion]

Have you looked at our accounts? There's no point making yourself angry at the owners if you haven't done your research

They are not gazillionaires with stacks of readies that they don't need. They are a business. We might not like that because it means we have to spend within the confines of what we earn as a business, but that's a world away from your assertion that they're all sat there draining the club of all its riches on a beach in Honalulu

We 'spend' all of the profit that we make. From our last set of audited accounts (freely available to all) we made a loss of £9.5m. There were no monies taken out of the club other than those you would expect, including the scheduled part repayment of the £200m (working cap) and £73m (stadium) loans

They are running the club as a healthy business that is not saddled with unreasonable debt, and we are / were spending at the absolute limit that our finances allow. Covid hit us hard, like all clubs that aren't owned by tycoons of some sort

For example - when we won the league, our matchday rev was £3.6m, down from £71m the year before.

I'm not saying they deserve a free ride, because a football club is not the same as an ordinary business*; but its simply untrue that they are taking money out of the club


*even an ordinary business has to take risks and 'speculate to accumulate' at times. The argument could therefore be "spend more, win more, earn more" but the problem is that spending more does not guarantee more wins

Exactly. It occurs to me that when G&H were in charge, FSG were exactly the owner typification that most of us wanted - i.e spend on infrastructure, don't take money out of the club, run us in a business savvy way and let the football people decide who to buy and play. The only issue we have is competing with owners who run their businesses in an unsustainable way. Not many of us wanted that - so we are where we thought we would be. And as for the current form, well class is permanent and most of us 'voted' for self respect, so I'm still content with the owners.

[Deano]

they don't take dividends, it's all reinvested in the club. just not all in the playing staff.

They take management fees, albeit only small.

[little dave hedgehog]

Exactly. It occurs to me that when G&H were in charge, FSG were exactly the owner typification that most of us wanted - i.e spend on infrastructure, don't take money out of the club, run us in a business savvy way and let the football people decide who to buy and play. The only issue we have is competing with owners who run their businesses in an unsustainable way. Not many of us wanted that - so we are where we thought we would be. And as for the current form, well class is permanent and most of us 'voted' for self respect, so I'm still content with the owners.

agreed. i'd have bitten your hand off for this under H&G. we've been living a dream for the best part of 5 years. i think it's reasonable, honestly, that the club can experience an off year in terms of results and be back at the races again next. the club is in transition, it needs to be broken up. they started with the front line. overhauling 2 sections of 3 of the team in one short off season is a big ask for a klopp team. it might take a minute to turn the ship.

[Fuzzy]

Is it also realistic to expect our top targets will still want to join after a season like this? What if there's no CL football?

[Venton]

Is it also realistic to expect our top targets will still want to join after a season like this? What if there's no CL football?

How many of our best signings been second choices for other clubs? - Suarez, Firmino, Salah, Mane. You can still get them if you pick the right ones (and pay them enough).

[Fuzzy]

Yes but currently we're also refusing to sign midfielders unless they are called Tchouameni or Bellingham right?

I agree with you that you can do precisely that - just we aren't really doing that, at least clearly not enough.

[Venton]

Yes but currently we're also refusing to sign midfielders unless they are called Tchouameni or Bellingham right?

I agree with you that you can do precisely that - just we aren't really doing that, at least clearly not enough.

Absolutely, but if we don't do so well this season it's not the end of the world in signings is all I'm saying.

For all this talk of Bellingham next season who's to say that City won't offer him £600k pw anyway? They're well capable.

[Paul12]

I don't see how FSG can be blamed for the loss of form of TAA, VVD, Robo and Mo, nor the injuries to Konate and Jones. We have got a sensible set of owners; owners that won't bankrupt the club and don't have awful human rights records.

[S-RED]

Whats not to love about this man.

[ame]https://twitter.com/thisisanfield/status/1569815494814736390[/ame]

[Exiled_red]

I just feel like if the money was there and it was up to Klopp that we’d have gone and got de Jong or Barella or Bellingham. Could also be that none of those players wanted to move.

This is the thing that confuses me, we were supposedly in for Tchouameni early in the window, but weren't prepared to pay what Madrid did. Nunez was our only big summer signing which came later in the window. Did we not have the money for both, was it always one or the other? Which seems odd given the different positions. Were we planning to sell someone to fund the 2nd big signing?

[Exiled_red]

Whats not to love about this man.

https://twitter.com/thisisanfield/st...15494814736390

WTF? This is the first I've heard of an all star game, what a load of ****

[spud_gun]

WTF? This is the first I've heard of an all star game, what a load of ****

Replace the Community Shield

[S-RED]

It was in an interview with Boehley Monday i think.... ****in stupid idea, like the 39th Game