Daniel Levy - Chairman

[Baleforce]

You say no excuse but if the new player is supposed to fill a specific gap or help adjust the system it can be understandable why maybe the season doesn't start so well. I can't think of a single coach who is happy not having new players in for preseason.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Fapatalk

You are not ever going to have just one player be responsible for that though, you have a depth chart to work through, you get options 2 and 3, who you already have, competent in the scheme in advance.

If you do end up with no option, due to injury or a late surprise sale, then you flex to a different scheme with different personnel, that you've also been preparing all summer long with what you have available.

This is the big leagues, if we don't have a deep playbook to work from, utilising all the tools in the squad, the manager isn't doing their job properly.

 

[scaramanga]

Son signed on the last day of the window 2015/2016. Negotiating for Mane and Wijnaldum where we couldn't or wouldn't match the wages offered in 2016/2017, instead we signed Sissoko on the last day of the window. [emoji58]

If I look back further there are many times we've struggled in way but I can't recall specifics off the top of my head.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Fapatalk

Actually, overpaying for Sissoko and being unable to shift him the next couple of windows is a perfect example of why we shouldn't overpay.

We bought Sissoko for £30m just before the new tv deal sent prices crazy - that's £60m in today's money. We were never going to get that back for him - we'd have been lucky to have got half.

 

[Bishop]

Actually, overpaying for Sissoko and being unable to shift him the next couple of windows is a perfect example of why we shouldn't overpay.

We bought Sissoko for £30m just before the new tv deal sent prices crazy - that's £60m in today's money. We were never going to get that back for him - we'd have been lucky to have got half.

No we just should have never bought him on the first place, but I agree getting a decent fee for him will be a struggle.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Fapatalk

 

[scaramanga]

No we just should have never bought him on the first place, but I agree getting a decent fee for him will be a struggle.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Fapatalk

You're right, we shouldn't. But there will always be mistakes, bad fits, etc in something as uncertain as player purchases. That's why buying a player for their value and no more is so important.

If we'd bought Sissoko for his actual value - £10-15m, then we probably could have sold him at a small loss (inflation adjusted).

 

[Finney Is Back]

You're right, we shouldn't. But there will always be mistakes, bad fits, etc in something as uncertain as player purchases. That's why buying a player for their value and no more is so important.

If we'd bought Sissoko for his actual value - £10-15m, then we probably could have sold him at a small loss (inflation adjusted).

I wonder whether Liverpool would've bought VVD and Alison if looking at value only though.

 

[scaramanga]

I wonder whether Liverpool would've bought VVD and Alison if looking at value only though.

Of course - they just assign a different value to each player.

 

[Bishop]

Of course - they just assign a different value to each player.

What they perceive as value is quite different to what what we do.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Fapatalk

 

[Finney Is Back]

Where did the Liverpool numbers come from as their investment was debt pay off and acquiring the club. That’s about it as far as I’ve read and their fans are very proud of that

Uniteds owners haven’t put a penny in and mortgaged the club again I’ll question that as it’s pretty common knowledge

Debt pay off is still owner investment. I would be absolutely delighted if our owners paid off even half of our debt.

I maintain that our owners are quite unique in that they have increased their own net worth considerably through owning Spurs (I would estimate a minimum of £1 billion between the pair of them) yet put barely none of their own wealth in to try to improve the standing of the club. For example, we know that money has been quite tight over the last few years as Levy directed a stadium build that went (and I speculate here as he was always very clever in not putting out any figures) £200 million plus over budget. Had the owners put in some of their own money in this period then we could've stayed competitive in the transfer market and perhaps won a few trophies during that period.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Debt pay off is still owner investment. I would be absolutely delighted if our owners paid off even half of our debt.

I maintain that our owners are quite unique in that they have increased their own net worth considerably through owning Spurs (I would estimate a minimum of £1 billion between the pair of them) yet put barely none of their own wealth in to try to improve the standing of the club. For example, we know that money has been quite tight over the last few years as Levy directed a stadium build that went (and I speculate here as he was always very clever in not putting out any figures) £200 million plus over budget. Had the owners put in some of their own money in this period then we could've stayed competitive in the transfer market and perhaps won a few trophies during that period.

I’d agree but if was part of the acquisition cost in this case so IMo shouldn’t be in the numbers

 

[Finney Is Back]

I’d agree but if was part of the acquisition cost in this case so IMo shouldn’t be in the numbers

I don't think it was part of the acquisition cost though? I think that Liverpool's debt was to the Bank's and one in particular (I think HSBC?) who had called in the loan. The new owners could easily have restructured the debt with the same Bank on better terms of HSBC, paid off that debt by taking on debt from other Banks or even paid the debt off with their own money via giving the club loans. They didn't do this however. They simply injected the money as shareholder funds to clear the debt. Them doing this showed that their overarching ambition for Liverpool was for it to be competing for the big trophies again and increasing the value of their holding that way.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I don't think it was part of the acquisition cost though? I think that Liverpool's debt was to the Bank's and one in particular (I think HSBC?) who had called in the loan. The new owners could easily have restructured the debt with the same Bank on better terms of HSBC, paid off that debt by taking on debt from other Banks or even paid the debt off with their own money via giving the club loans. They didn't do this however. They simply injected the money as shareholder funds to clear the debt. Them doing this showed that their overarching ambition for Liverpool was for it to be competing for the big trophies again and increasing the value of their holding that way.

I read at the time they had to pay of the debt when buying the club a the loan was called in against previous owners

Cant argue its not investment but its part of the cost of buying that club.

 

[Raziel]

Liverpool is different, twice in the last decade (too lazy to go dig it up) they were in a really bad place financially and it was cleared via sell/purchasing, my understanding specific to the last buy out is the previous owner got fudged (received far less than they should) with the debt being covered.

I think people are minimizing the understanding of how the fact that ENIC stands behind the club affects our ability to finance loans, to get better interest rates and even approvals. To put that down to club self financing is more than a little misleading.

 

[thfcsteff]

No your point was we should pay more than we believe a player is worth
Then you have added buying early is key
We bought NDombele early. That’s not made any difference
Sessegnon was injured so when we bought him made no difference
Lo Celso was away until a few weeks before the window shut so we may have gained a couple of weeks training with him
None of this made any difference in reality as players can settle straight away or sometimes take a season to bed in.

We will have to agree to disagree then. Remember what he asked for though...

 

[thfcsteff]

Actually, overpaying for Sissoko and being unable to shift him the next couple of windows is a perfect example of why we shouldn't overpay.

We bought Sissoko for £30m just before the new tv deal sent prices crazy - that's £60m in today's money. We were never going to get that back for him - we'd have been lucky to have got half.

Except Poch didn’t ask for him, he was a Levy deal.

 

[scaramanga]

Except Poch didn’t ask for him, he was a Levy deal.

That doesn't really change the point. Overpaying is the problem

 

[Yermiyahu]

Except Poch didn’t ask for him, he was a Levy deal.

And we know this how?

 

[scaramanga]

And we know this how?

Because he was the first to step back shouting "wasn't me, not my fault" when Sissoko started stinking up the place is my guess.

 

[thfcsteff]

And we know this how?

There is little doubt he was an "option" on a list of "targets" but trust me, he was not Pochettino's first choice in that dept by a long way.

 

[Hootnow]

That risk of asset stripping is there for any club - the alternative is for it to be run by people with no clue as to how a large business should be operated. I'll take the vanishingly small risk that the club is more valuable as assets than as a going concern over a club run by a charity, or worse, its fans.

You're not quite getting what I'm saying.

I am not telling you to go and support another club. I know the risk of asset stripping is there for every club. I know that Levy and Lewis can theoretically do it tomorrow and wrap up the club.

What I am slightly confused by is a) your passion for something that objectively makes no sense and b) how this fits in with how matter of factly you talk about the owners asset stripping and wrapping things up if they so choose.

 

[Hootnow]

Better to lose that player than pay too much imo.

Being alive for the next hand is how you win in the end.

Similarly, folding for every hand that isn't pocket aces because you want to always make sure you have the most dominant hand before playing is not how you win either.

You don't go all in on unsuited 2-7 and you don't fold all hands that aren't pocket aces. There is a medium.

For example, Liverpool are where they are now (CL winners, very likely seemingly to win the PL this season) because they have taken (relative) punts on players like Salah and Mane, taken punts on cheaper players like Robertson and have a good academy (TAA). We have similar situations. Son, Moura for the first group (and I guess, while an abject failure, Sissoko), hopefully GLC. Then the likes of Trippier, Alli, Sessengon. Kane, Winks etc.

Perhaps the big final difference has been the purchases of Allison and VVD for a combined total of almost £150 million. They identified two big problem positions for themselves, identified two players they really wanted, took a big risk and according to almost everyone (including me), overpaid. How we all laughed.

That 'overpayment' is now looking a great investment. The extra exposure, extra money, extra trophies (kind of what football is about in the end).

Yes I know our financial situation is not the same. I know they still have more revenue and I know they're a bigger club and I know we've now got a huge stadium debt to pay off, which hopefully will change things in the long run.

People tell me we've changed how we do deals now, I remain hopeful of that. Hopefully N'dombole will be a harbinger of things to come. Though that did also come with a summer long chase of a player we've ended up signing on the last day on a loan deal to smartly circumvent paying extra to PSG. Just a shame it means he had literally no pre-season and we're now sitting halfway through December with him nowhere near the pace. Though I appreciate he has also had an injury since arriving.