Liverpool FC Forum

by **The Good Yank** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:22 pm

The way Baseball teams are built is through, drafting players, trading players and free agency. Very few succesful teams are built on players they draft. You might get a core of young players you drafted to come up through the farm system and then you supplement that core by trading some prospects for players who can fill needs.

The big money though is through free Agency. Some of the free agent contracts blow away any record transfer fees every heard of. The difference is though that all the money for the free agent goes directly to the player as opposed to the club (franchise is simply the term we use for club over here). For example Jason Bay was signed to a four year deal by the New York Mets last off season for $66,000,000. Decent player, nothing incredible though. Matt Holliday a 30 year old outfielder was signed by the St. Louis Cardinals for 7 years for $120,000,000, again, very good player, aging, but not the best player in the league.

A couple of years ago the New York Yankees re-signed Alex rodrigues to a deal that paid him $25,000,000 per year for about 10 years. so a quarter billion dollars for one player.

As a note last year The Boston Red Sox signed pitcher John Lackey for 5 years total cost $82,500,000.

by **lakes10** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:23 pm

YNWAinNYC wrote:For those wondering about Fenway/Anfield, the Red Sox owners looked at building a new stadium, but the fan were so connected to Fenway and so upset at the idea of moving, they decided to redevelop the historic park. They listened to the fans.

In baseball, there aren't transfer fees per se; more so, they trade players, not money. But the contracts the players receive are more expensive than football players, so it evens out, for sure. I have no worries about John Henry not spending the money and making the right moves. He's dealt with a rabid, historic and passionate fan base, and now he's about to get another!

i have always said we should just redevelop our ground, we own most of the streets near it now.

by **redsoxfan** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:23 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
stmichael wrote:Why can't people see it's not about how much money this guy personally has? We don't need to throw millions around like City and quite frankly I wouldn't want us to.

Hmm, I agree with the sentiments in general, but not with saying that we don't need to throw money about. That is in fact exactly what we need to be doing, and it's what we should have been doing the last three seasons. When this owner comes in, if he comes in, I expect him to splash some serious coin in the areas we need it. F*cking sick to death with the Lucas', Konchesky, and Poulson et al signings. The first team needs big money spent on it and I've been beating that drum for three years. I'm not sure American owners are up to meeting demands like that. They aren't used to buying players when in their sports "franchises" players are drafted in instead of signed, usually. I'm not quite sure, but I think I remember seeing something on a sports site a while ago about a baseball player being sold for a record price. Maybe one of our American posters on here knows more about that. Anyway, it's rare for them to go digging in their pockets to buying wholesale over there.

Players are acquired in 3 ways here.

1) The draft - the worst teams get the first choice of high school and college players. Without telling you the whole confusing story, Boston drafts better than their position would indicate.

2. Trades - Very simply, players are exchanged for each other. Sometimes 1 for 1, sometimes 3 for 2 or 4 for 1, etc. Boston does a good job here too usually.

3. Free agency - When a veteran has been in the league for 6 (??) years, they can become a free agent when their contract runs out, and sign with any team. The rich teams do best. The New York Yankees have an ungodly amount of money and usually can get the best players. But Boston is in the next group of big spenders. They spent nearly $200 million this past offseason on new players. Most of the time they make the right choices, but no one's perfect of course. They also have a knack for getting useful, unheralded cheap players due to their excellent scouting.

So re: transfers, I'd say that Henry is a studious man. He's likely well aware about the differences between the two sports. Expect him to spend money, but not too foolishly. The key is him hiring the right football people to run the operation.

by **tubby** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:24 pm

Can we compete with someone like Spurs in terms of transfers?

by **ruskiy playmaker** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:24 pm

LiverpoolMadman wrote:I don't want another YANKS OWNER ... enough for the last 3 years with H and G ... We should learn from this ... what we need now someone like Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan or Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum to clear the debt, build new stadium and money to buy new players ...

Why would you want Arab owners? They own like half of England already.

by **LiverpoolMadman** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:28 pm

redsoxfan wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
stmichael wrote:Why can't people see it's not about how much money this guy personally has? We don't need to throw millions around like City and quite frankly I wouldn't want us to.

Hmm, I agree with the sentiments in general, but not with saying that we don't need to throw money about. That is in fact exactly what we need to be doing, and it's what we should have been doing the last three seasons. When this owner comes in, if he comes in, I expect him to splash some serious coin in the areas we need it. F*cking sick to death with the Lucas', Konchesky, and Poulson et al signings. The first team needs big money spent on it and I've been beating that drum for three years. I'm not sure American owners are up to meeting demands like that. They aren't used to buying players when in their sports "franchises" players are drafted in instead of signed, usually. I'm not quite sure, but I think I remember seeing something on a sports site a while ago about a baseball player being sold for a record price. Maybe one of our American posters on here knows more about that. Anyway, it's rare for them to go digging in their pockets to buying wholesale over there.

Players are acquired in 3 ways here.

1) The draft - the worst teams get the first choice of high school and college players. Without telling you the whole confusing story, Boston drafts better than their position would indicate.

2. Trades - Very simply, players are exchanged for each other. Sometimes 1 for 1, sometimes 3 for 2 or 4 for 1, etc. Boston does a good job here too usually.

3. Free agency - When a veteran has been in the league for 6 (??) years, they can become a free agent when their contract runs out, and sign with any team. The rich teams do best. The New York Yankees have an ungodly amount of money and usually can get the best players. But Boston is in the next group of big spenders. They spent nearly $200 million this past offseason on new players. Most of the time they make the right choices, but no one's perfect of course. They also have a knack for getting useful, unheralded cheap players due to their excellent scouting.

So re: transfers, I'd say that Henry is a studious man. He's likely well aware about the differences between the two sports. Expect him to spend money, but not too foolishly. The key is him hiring the right football people to run the operation.

That's show how different in the world of soccer and Baseball ... look at Chelsea, Man City, Man U, Arsenal , RM and Barca .. one thing in common that they have .. that is "cash ready" to buy players that they need ...

by **lakes10** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:28 pm

bavlondon wrote:Can we compete with someone like Spurs in terms of transfers?

lol no, the new owners not have the money for player mate. they only just got the money to buy the club.

all money from players will come from sales of our players. in truth that makes me happy as we have so much young :censored:

at our club we can clean them up and sell them on.

by **Igor Zidane** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:30 pm

What you've got to remember is that LFC is a vry profitable business . We as a club made a £40 million profit last year , only problem was it went to pay off debt . Now if the vast majority of that debt isn't there ,the profit can either be plowed back into the team or into the owners back pocket . Makes things look alot healthier in that respect.

by **Bad Bob** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:30 pm

redsoxfan wrote:Hello again. To answer a few questions...

The stadium -- Fenway is the most historic park in baseball, 98 years old. It was in ok shape but needed renovation or to be replaced. They decided to renovate and have done a magnificent job. Here's an article that shows how uniquely they improved it:

http://leeinks.weei.com/sports....ce-2002

People seemed confused about Camden Yards, the Baltimore Orioles stadium. It's true that Baltimore is poorly run. But the connection is only that Larry Lucchino, our club President, used to be there when it was run well in the early 1990s. At that time they built a new ballpark which was very highly praised. The same architect who built that Baltimore park renovated Fenway. Here is a review of it:
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/reviews/camdenreviews.htm

And here's the Fenway Park review with a video: http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/al/FenwayPark.htm

Thanks for the input, mate. You're doing important work here, believe me. :nod

I've highlighted your comments about the stadiums because it's a big part of the picture with Liverpool.

Fenway is a baseball shrine: the one park that all baseball fans want to visit at least once in their lives...preferably to see a game, although getting a ticket is murder. Sound familiar? If Henry and Co. go the refurbishment route and do as good a job with Anfield as they've done with Fenway, I think we could be on to a real winner.

This is the first I'm hearing of the link to Camden Yards but that's also exciting news. Prior to the construction of the Orioles' new stadium in the 1990s the few new grounds that came along to replace the concrete monstrosities of the 1960s and 1970s were soul-less, multi-purpose white elephants. I grew up around Toronto and it's lame-a.ss Skydome (now Rogers Centre)...trust me, I know. :no

When word came out that Baltimore was building a new park that would have all the modern amenities but that retained the feel of a traditional ball park, a lot of people were skeptical but the results were spectacular. So spectacular, in fact, that just about every new baseball stadium built since has tried to replicate its balance between modern revenue maximization and old-time character. Some have succeeded and others haven't but Camden Yards in Baltimore provided the template. What that suggests to me is that, should the new owners go this route (and I know we're a ways off from that decision), they'll be looking to create a stadium that respects tradition as well as provides all the modern amenities. Interesting times. :nod

by **LiverpoolMadman** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:30 pm

ruskiy playmaker wrote:
LiverpoolMadman wrote:I don't want another YANKS OWNER ... enough for the last 3 years with H and G ... We should learn from this ... what we need now someone like Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan or Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum to clear the debt, build new stadium and money to buy new players ...

Why would you want Arab owners? They own like half of England already.

Nothing to do with politics, race or religion ... but it seems that they are the one that got more money ...

by **Emerald Red** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:30 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:They aren't used to buying players when in their sports "franchises" players are drafted in instead of signed, usually. I'm not quite sure, but I think I remember seeing something on a sports site a while ago about a baseball player being sold for a record price. Maybe one of our American posters on here knows more about that. Anyway, it's rare for them to go digging in their pockets to buying wholesale over there.

Naw, mate, there's plenty of big name sales, wheeling and dealing etc. in American sports, including baseball. The draft targets promising youngsters but that's not the only--nor necessarily the primary--way that teams improve their rosters. Nothing to worry about on that score.

Cheers, Bob. I know that players are bought and sold there. There's big money thrown about on buying players, but most of the money goes towards wages as I understand it. The difference in football is that there is big wages and big transfer fees when teams like Chelsea and City come sniffing for the same player/s. I'm just not sure that if they take over, that they would be willing to meet the ruthless demands of a transfer window when it comes to getting the quality we'd need. On top of that, I don't believe we've the manager to get us exactly the quality we need either. He may be willing to stick his hands in his pockets initially otherwise it'll be a while before we start to see some benefit of his ownership.

by **lakes10** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:33 pm

"
But Hicks and Gillett, who it is understood walk away with no profit at all from three-and-a-half years in charge, are bound to contest the sale in court, meaning a period of uncertainty for fans about their exit being final.

Read More [url=http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/10/06/liverpool-fc-sale-chairman-martin-broughton-says-john-w-henry-and-new-england-sports-ventu
res-will-be-excellent-owners-100252-27413801/#ixzz11apNwmxh]http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpo....apNwmxh[/url] "

ok so lets look at what could happen during the next few weeks.

the sale looks like being put on hold. the act of court would also stop the club from making any profit from its self, this means the only way fans could see the games is if they were free. the club shop would also have to be shut during this time and the online site shop.

the court colud also act and stop the club from speading any money, this could mean player using their own money to get to games, it would also mean no staff to be paid during this time, the club could ask them to work for free, but let it be known they would get their money if the sale happens.

by **LiverpoolMadman** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:34 pm

This is something like they have money to buy a new house, some renovation, electric and water bill but .... they have no money to buy food for that new house ...

by **Emerald Red** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:35 pm

The Good Yank wrote:A couple of years ago the New York Yankees re-signed Alex rodrigues to a deal that paid him $25,000,000 per year for about 10 years. so a quarter billion dollars for one player.

Yep, that's the one I read about. Scary money, that.

by **Reg** » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:35 pm

Sweet holy goodness, flew back home overnight and we've jumped 30 pages!!

Whats the story morning glory?

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online