Liverpool FC Forum

heimdall » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:23 pm wrote:

SouthCoastShankly » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:23 pm wrote:That isn't the point.

The point is that was cannot spend and incur debt safe in the knowledge that we can get by with commercial revenue and stock market income. We aren't as big as that.

That risk is reserved for clubs who already have money. We clearly do not and cannot justify over investing.

Do you define £2million extra, on top of the £4million Dempsey bid, as overinvesting?

Firstly the figures you are quoting are speculation.

Regardless, if the club had valued Dempsey at £4m max then 'yes'. Let's be honest he was hardly coveted, if Spurs hadn't of come in last minute he would be warming the Fulham reserve bench.

We clearly made mistakes in the window but despite the recent failing I fully support the financial approach of the club. It's safeguards our future, I don't want short term success at the expense/risk of bankruptcy.

The Hustler » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:23 pm wrote:Im sure the owners will give funds to the manager in January. Lets hope he buys right + doesnt waste the cash.

Why are you sure of this, when they didn't give him adequate funds this summer?

SouthCoastShankly » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:09 pm wrote:

heimdall » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:23 pm wrote:

SouthCoastShankly » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:23 pm wrote:That isn't the point.

The point is that was cannot spend and incur debt safe in the knowledge that we can get by with commercial revenue and stock market income. We aren't as big as that.

That risk is reserved for clubs who already have money. We clearly do not and cannot justify over investing.

Do you define £2million extra, on top of the £4million Dempsey bid, as overinvesting?

Firstly the figures you are quoting are speculation.

Regardless, if the club had valued Dempsey at £4m max then 'yes'. Let's be honest he was hardly coveted, if Spurs hadn't of come in last minute he would be warming the Fulham reserve bench.

We clearly made mistakes in the window but despite the recent failing I fully support the financial approach of the club. It's safeguards our future, I don't want short term success at the expense/risk of bankruptcy.

Erm no it's not really speculation, we know he was signed for £6million, we also know that he wanted to come here, so it's fair to assume that a bid of £6million, which lets face it is just the money we got from Adam and Carroll, would have secured him as our striker. I don't quite see how this £6 million would have destabilised the club to the point of bankruptcy.

SouthCoastShankly » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:09 pm wrote:

heimdall » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:23 pm wrote:

SouthCoastShankly » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:23 pm wrote:That isn't the point.

The point is that was cannot spend and incur debt safe in the knowledge that we can get by with commercial revenue and stock market income. We aren't as big as that.

That risk is reserved for clubs who already have money. We clearly do not and cannot justify over investing.

Do you define £2million extra, on top of the £4million Dempsey bid, as overinvesting?

Firstly the figures you are quoting are speculation.

Regardless, if the club had valued Dempsey at £4m max then 'yes'. Let's be honest he was hardly coveted, if Spurs hadn't of come in last minute he would be warming the Fulham reserve bench.

We clearly made mistakes in the window but despite the recent failing I fully support the financial approach of the club. It's safeguards our future, I don't want short term success at the expense/risk of bankruptcy.

i think a few fans are under the impression that we nearly went bust under H+G because of recklessness in the tranfser market, it had nothing to do with transfer spending, H+G bought the club with loans and when the financial crisis hit the interest payments on those loans spiralled out of control.
a club our size and with our turnover would have to be really reckless for quite a long time in the transfer market before we went bust.
people often refer to the money wasted by comoli or kenny but because of the players we sold (torres, babel, meireles, ngog, soto etc) and the cutbacks on wages the club broke even, that `spending spree` didnt pile debt on the club.
even without champions league football that deloitte (sp?) had us down as 8th worldwide in terms of turnover, infact thanks to FSG and corporate partnership deals with the likes of warrior / chevrolet etc we are earning more now than we did when we used to qualify for the CL under rafa.
i`m sure an extra couple of million quid on a back up striker wouldnt have left us on skid row.

heimdall » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:45 pm wrote:

The Hustler » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:23 pm wrote:Im sure the owners will give funds to the manager in January. Lets hope he buys right + doesnt waste the cash.

Why are you sure of this, when they didn't give him adequate funds this summer?

Because a lot of fans think the yanks are against the fans, have a conspiracy against us, and a wicked dungeon.

Henry said he was disapointed we didnt get a striker, so I believe they will give some cash in Jan.

The Hustler » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:45 pm wrote:

heimdall » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:45 pm wrote:

The Hustler » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:23 pm wrote:Im sure the owners will give funds to the manager in January. Lets hope he buys right + doesnt waste the cash.

Why are you sure of this, when they didn't give him adequate funds this summer?

Because a lot of fans think the yanks are against the fans, have a conspiracy against us, and a wicked dungeon.

Henry said he was disapointed we didnt get a striker, so I believe they will give some cash in Jan.

the `sceptical` fans know the owners want liverpool to be successful, hell, even H+G wanted liverpool to be successful
it`s what their definition of success is that concerns some fans.
we were in the final of the two domestic cup competitions last season but that achievement got brushed aside because there`s no money in them.
if someone offered the owners the chance to finish 4th every season for the next 20 years (and we didnt win a trophy in that time) i suspect the owners would  bite their hands off.
i`ve no doubt the owners and the fans all want the same thing - a successful LFC, i`m just not convinced the fans and the owners idea of what success is is the exactly the same.

The Hustler » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:45 pm wrote:

heimdall » Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:45 pm wrote:

The Hustler » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:23 pm wrote:Im sure the owners will give funds to the manager in January. Lets hope he buys right + doesnt waste the cash.

Why are you sure of this, when they didn't give him adequate funds this summer?

Because a lot of fans think the yanks are against the fans, have a conspiracy against us, and a wicked dungeon.

Henry said he was disapointed we didnt get a striker, so I believe they will give some cash in Jan.

The thing that gets me about this is the failure to buy "a striker". Why only one striker? A club that should be challenging for the top 4 needs a minimum of 4 strikers, so we should have been buying 2 new strikers. The club had a couple of months to get this done, not just confined to the final week of the transfer window. I've never seen such incompetence by any club in the transfer market as LFC this transfer window. There was/is still an opportunity to get a player on a free transfer, but this appears to have been ignored as well.

Sadly, I think the club will struggle to finish in the top half of the league. I'm thinking 12th place, to be brutally honest. The owners really have a lot to answer for in this period of shambles. 

Of course what folks conveniently forget is we were trying to negotiate a swap with Fulham, Henderson + cash for Dempsey, hence it went to the wire when we had to switch to cash only. Owners fault or local management?

I know it's all speculation, but it was said that we did bid the 6 million for Dempsey.  We matched the price that Villa had bid and had accepted.  Therefore the between the lines conclusion I've sort of come to is that Fulham, seeing our deep need for a striker (which Dempsey isn't by the way), tried to squeeze us for more money.  We stayed firm.  Spurs put the same 6 mill bid in, and Fulham accepted.

I don't think it's any secret that Fulham are not exactly happy with us over the past couple of years.  Yes the Roy Hodgson thing turned into a debacle for us.  But he had gotten them to 7th in the league and to the Europa Final.  For them that is dreamland.  So we take the manager who brought them some success (In their eyes), and then we unsettle Dempsey.  He is their all time Premiership scorer. 

I think they were resigned to him leaving.  For 6 million to other clubs they would accept.  For us though, we'd have to pay more.

Good point Mr Good Yank, I'd forgotten about that.

The Good Yank » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:09 am wrote:I know it's all speculation, but it was said that we did bid the 6 million for Dempsey.  We matched the price that Villa had bid and had accepted.  Therefore the between the lines conclusion I've sort of come to is that Fulham, seeing our deep need for a striker (which Dempsey isn't by the way), tried to squeeze us for more money.  We stayed firm.  Spurs put the same 6 mill bid in, and Fulham accepted.

I don't think it's any secret that Fulham are not exactly happy with us over the past couple of years.  Yes the Roy Hodgson thing turned into a debacle for us.  But he had gotten them to 7th in the league and to the Europa Final.  For them that is dreamland.  So we take the manager who brought them some success (In their eyes), and then we unsettle Dempsey.  He is their all time Premiership scorer. 

I think they were resigned to him leaving.  For 6 million to other clubs they would accept.  For us though, we'd have to pay more.

I suspect there's a lot of truth to this, mate.  Sometimes transfers are all about doing business but sometimes there's more emotion to it than that.  Remember when we were looking to sign Heinze from the Mancs a few years back?  Somehow, that deal never quite came off either.

I reckon we could've offered £10 million for Dempsey and they'd not of let us have him. ***** fulham are.

Roger Red Hat » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:24 pm wrote:I reckon we could've offered £10 million for Dempsey and they'd not of let us have him. ***** fulham are.

Fulham where ***** at us for tapping him up. Fair play they diudnt sell him to us, the fault lays with Dempsey if he put his foot down and said Liverpool or no one he would be playing for us now

If I recall, we had similar problems with Villa over the proposed Barry transfer.  We unsettled their man and MON was not happy so they held out for significant wonga and we had to drop it, having already paid over the odds for Robbie Keane.  I guess the difference being that the whole Barry transfer saga lit a fire under Alonso, who turned in his best season at the club before heading to Madrid.  Perhaps Carroll would have had a stormer for us if we'd kept him for the same reason?


*Edit*

Of course, these incidents highlight that we have some problem with the way we approach at least some players during the transfer season.  It's obviously not good strategy to ***** off the other club and we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot a few times conducting business the way we do.  That's the kind of thing that needs sorting out.

But that last day of the transfer window wasn't exactly about Dempsey now, was it?