maybe HE is andy in disguise
RAWK Goes Into Meltdown (2009/10)
- Thread starter ::sonny::
- Start date
- Status
I think he's referring to the finances. You're not off to that bad of a start compared to what we did a couple years ago.
it's actually a twenty page thread devoted to the amazing stupidity of your fans, and our incredulity at it!
Oh you must have different feelings then most of my Liverpool friends,their heads are going oh and their mobiles dont seem to be working either
The fact that he didn't understand that makes this post all the more meaningful.
Horrible word that. Think about the offense you may be causing, or don't, it's up to you.The Liverpool fan whinging about money and blaming the yanks for everything says I've reverted to type.
Good one Murph, you spastic.
And by reverting to type I meant shouting the odds LOUDLY so your mates can hear you, behind a key board. Anyway...
The Yanks are the biggest threat to the future prosperity and success of Liverpool F.C. since Everton fecked off and moved across the park. I hate the pair of them. rafa meanwhile is the bollocks.
Word.
I don't understand, how can Rafa be blamed for the finances, we're in negative spend since 2008?
Murph, act like a spastic, and get called a spastic. Don't be so sensitive, it happens to everyone. You should know the caf by now.
You're on a roll tonight. How the feck do you shout loudly on an internet forum? Are you taking this place too seriously again? That sabbatical you took for your own good doesn't seem to have cured your issues. Settle down Murph, it's not a fight, so stop seeing it that way. Honestly, you'd be right at home on RAWK. I don't know why you do this to yourself over here.
Your spending per season has increased under the yanks. Given their only input into the club is releasing those funds, I don't see how they're more of a threat than the shite decisions made by your manager.
That. Rafa's transfer activity has blown a lot of money. At least that's Kraft's argument.
Buying a player for 20m, selling him for 12m months later........
Yeah, Usually by this stage of the season your fans have tied the ribbons on the trophy!
4 months later actually. he didn't work out and we got most of our money back, how much did you get for Veron?
Yes, we lost a fair bit of money on that one, but SAF doesn't go on about how little money he has to spend.
That'll be because he went out and bought Ferdinand shortly afterwards?
No, he bought Ferdinand a year before selling Veron.
And we gave Veron 2 full seasons before deciding he doesnt fit in.
Yes, we spent a fair penny on Ferdinand. But he has been crucial to our success and is still in the squad. How much money has Senor Benitez signed that never amounted to anything. If he didn't spend so much money on average at best players, he'd have the money to buy the good players. He goes for the quantity not quality route.
At least our signings good and the odd faux pax have produced a regular title winning side,enough said
Murph, just because I flag you up on your bullshit (and it is bullshit), doesn't mean I'm showing off or acting like a big kid. It merely means I'm responding to your bullshit. This is why you come across as so sensitive, and why it's obvious you take this place so seriously. You see these arguments against you and take them so personally. If you're going to start whinging about cash, despite the clear fact Liverpool are the biggest spenders outside Chelsea and City, you can expect to be pulled up on it. If I didn't, someone else would have.
There you go again with your player price argument. It's a completely null argument because you've had more funds than us (this couldn't be more clear), but have chosen to spend it on multiple lower priced signings, hence why you've got by far the biggest squad in the Premier League, and why Rafa has signed something like 80 players (I'm not even exaggerating here). Taking last summer as an example, we can spend big on single players because we get it right, meaning we only need to buy a Berbatov, whereas Rafa's fecked it up so much for you that you needed to buy a left-back (Dosenna), a striker (Keane), and multiple other signings, spending more than us in total, and when those don't work out having to start all over again. So yes, we have more valuable players, but that's just another stick to beat with you with - why do we have a more valuable squad despite spending less overall? Answer - our respective managers.
I don't care how the yanks structured your deals or managed to finance them, the fact is you've heavily outspent everyone in the league apart from the oil-rich billionaires. Now consider that United (and Arsenal) have won multiple league titles at significant financial disadvantages compared to their rivals, and you don't have a leg to stand on. All this financial disadvantage bullshit. Firstly, it's not even true, and secondly, it shouldn't even matter so long as you're good enough, which Fergie and Wenger have proven time and time again.
There you go again with your player price argument. It's a completely null argument because you've had more funds than us (this couldn't be more clear), but have chosen to spend it on multiple lower priced signings, hence why you've got by far the biggest squad in the Premier League, and why Rafa has signed something like 80 players (I'm not even exaggerating here). Taking last summer as an example, we can spend big on single players because we get it right, meaning we only need to buy a Berbatov, whereas Rafa's fecked it up so much for you that you needed to buy a left-back (Dosenna), a striker (Keane), and multiple other signings, spending more than us in total, and when those don't work out having to start all over again. So yes, we have more valuable players, but that's just another stick to beat with you with - why do we have a more valuable squad despite spending less overall? Answer - our respective managers.
I don't care how the yanks structured your deals or managed to finance them, the fact is you've heavily outspent everyone in the league apart from the oil-rich billionaires. Now consider that United (and Arsenal) have won multiple league titles at significant financial disadvantages compared to their rivals, and you don't have a leg to stand on. All this financial disadvantage bullshit. Firstly, it's not even true, and secondly, it shouldn't even matter so long as you're good enough, which Fergie and Wenger have proven time and time again.
£17m wasn't it, with him forming part of the midfield which won us a league title and a couple of other trophies. So that's an £11m loss, offset by the trophies he helped us win.
He was signed for £28m, which is roughly what you spent on Robbie Keane and Andrea Dosenna combined.
You've already lost £8/9m on Keane. Lose more than £2m on Dosenna (which seems very likely), and you'll have wasted more than us, whilst winning feck all to boot.
Yes, we wasted money on Veron, but we aint got shit on you guys in terms of wasting money.
£15m, and there were no other trophies won with Veron in the team.
Pretty much sums it up right there.
Good read and of course I agree with all said
Cheers. Still a league title is more than what Liverpool have to show for their recent flops.
OK, so lose more than £4m on Dosenna (again, likely), and Liverpool will have wasted more than us whilst winning feck all.
Money wasted on two players is the same money wasted on one player. I think this is the concept Murph struggles with.
Murhp, would you agree when I say that Benitez is at least partially to blame for the Alonso exit?
That's a bit harsh, isn't it?
I know I'm new, but I've lurked for ages, and Murphman seems to be pretty reasonable, in his own scouse way.
RAWK is more custom built to suit a scouse Osama bin Laden type of fella -- living in his own world where absolutely everything & everyone is fighting against him & his cause; loving the sound of his own voice when he launches into cringeworthy diatribes & pontificating on how it's Their Destiny to win the title this year; worshiping at the shrine of the Rafatollah (NB! True scouse expression!) & reminiscing about Jan Mølby's tight shorts.
You're right, I was only joking. Though Murph is at least a watered down version of all those things, plus you have to factor in the fact he has to restrain himself here, whereas on RAWK he could let go, and probably just be like one of them.
A little bit yes but at the end of the day it's Murphman.The best Liverpool fans on this site are Spammy and maybe Dumpstar
I think even that would make him feel a little dirty.
I never argued that wasn't the case, but to talk of obscene amounts spent by Liverpool and Chelsea is a joke coming from a manc. Torres cost the same as Hargreaves give or take.
You don't get it. It's obscene because for all you've spent in recent years, you've got feck all to show for it.
You've actually outspent us since the prem began as well, which has to be one of the biggest jokes in football.
Failure is one thing, but failure whilst outspending the side winning the trophies - that's obscene.
I would never talk of the obscene amounts spent by Liverpool, as i don't think it is true - I do however take exception to the fans who say he has spent F all at Liverpool.
Chelsea is another matter entirely. They are bankrolled and could in no way afford to buy or pay their players if they didn't have a rich oil fella paying for it all. (Same with City) United, and Liverpool, buy and pay players with money they have made as a club, or money they have borrowed and pay back as a club. United and Liverpool earn the money they spend, completely unlike Chelsea and City.
Only if you include the sale of Luis García to Atleti.
Right, last go, I have a hard day on the golf course.
Transfer fees are total speculation and can be structured, i.e. not actually paid for in full. This is where the yanks have for a while created a smokescreen. But nobody takes players wages into account and these are FAR more relative to who plays for you.
So try this on for size, and unlike your rants this isn't bullshit.
FT.com / UK - Premier League wages bill tops £1bn
Premier League wages bill tops £1bn
By Roger Blitz, Leisure Industries Correspondent
Published: June 4 2009 03:00 | Last updated: June 4 2009 03:00
Total wages in the Premier League have exceeded £1bn for the first time as England's elite football clubs take advantage of extra television rights revenue in a scramble for talent.
Their financial advantage over rival European leagues is set to narrow, however, because of sterling's decline against the euro and the incoming 50 per cent tax band for top earners, according to Deloitte's annual review of football finance.
The Premiership wage bill rose 23 per cent to £1.2bn in the 2007-08 season, according to the report. Chelsea comfortably topped the wage league, with Roman Abramovich's club spending £172m on salaries, compared with £121m spent by Manchester United, £101m by Arsenal and £90m by Liverpool.But the wages-to-revenue ratio dipped slightly to 62 per cent because revenues across the 20 clubs grew 26 per cent to £1.9bn.
A £736m surplus enabled the Premier League to nearly double operating profits to £185m, although only 11 out of 20 clubs were in profit, while operating margins fell.
At the same time, there was a rise in net debt - which worries the government and the Football Association - by £400m to £3.1bn, including £1.2bn of soft loans from club owners, such as Mr Abramovich. Interest charges totalled £188m.
Dan Jones, of Deloitte's Sports Business Group, said that, with pressures from the recession on season ticket renewals, sponsorship and merchandising, the 16 per cent compound annual growth rate enjoyed by the Premier League since its inception in 1992 was likely to slow, despite a 4 per cent increase in the value of its new domestic TV rights deal.
"You might be looking at 5 per cent annual growth in the next five years," he said.
The surprise finding was an 18 per cent increase in other operating costs - areas such as utility, property and insurance - which takes the increase since 2005-06 to 42 per cent. Those costs grew at an annual rate of just 3 per cent in the preceding four years.
With revenue growth slowing and wage costs unlikely to decline, controlling those costs was probably the only way profitability could be improved, said Deloitte.
Mr Jones said the exchange rate was "definitely helping to close the gap" between the Premier League and top clubs in continental Europe, and the 50 per cent tax rate would also make a difference.
"But once you get down to 7th or 8th place in the Premiership and look at the equivalent on the continent, the gap is still substantial," he said. The revenue gap between the Premier League and both Germany's Bundesliga and Spain's La Liga is more than €1bn (£863m), despite a 15 per cent depreciation in sterling.
While the amount spent on wages tends to determine a club's league position, no such correlation exists in the Football League's Championship, where revenues grew 12 per cent but net debt rose by £28m to £326m.
Wages in the Championship rose £32m to £291m, but the wages-to-revenue ratio is a worrying 87 per cent, up from 79 per cent the previous year. Player wages are up across the Football League, by 17 per cent in the Championship, 27 per cent in League One and 8 per cent in League Two.
"For larger clubs, playing to sold-out stadia, with strong demand for corporate packages and wide commercial appeal, the impact [of the economic downturn] may be limited," said Mr Jones.
"However, for smaller clubs, where demand is more variable and where significant excess capacity exists, the downside may be more pronounced."
Fact!!
That puts our success in some context. We've overtaken a team who are spending nearly a million pounds a week more than us, clearly a huge factor in success.
Those figures are now out of date. We've got rid of 2 of our biggest earners, whilst you've just increased the contracts of most of your biggest earners, and possibly made Glen Johnson the highest paid full-back in Europe.
One other thing, as a percentage of revenue, United have the lowest wage ratio in the entire Premier League. And I don't really mind that we reward our players for success with good contracts. You pay your players £90m a year for feck all. And that's on top of being the biggest transfer spenders outside the billionaires. Obscene, whatever way you look at it Murph.
Still none of this matters because, as you've kindly shown, we've been able to win despite a mammoth financial disparity compared to Chelsea both in terms of wages AND transfer fees. As a contrast, you just have a relatively small wage disparity, and a financial transfer ADVANTAGE compared to the winning team (us), so you don't have a leg to stand on Murph.
One other thing, as a percentage of revenue, United have the lowest wage ratio in the entire Premier League. And I don't really mind that we reward our players for success with good contracts. You pay your players £90m a year for feck all. And that's on top of being the biggest transfer spenders outside the billionaires. Obscene, whatever way you look at it Murph.
Still none of this matters because, as you've kindly shown, we've been able to win despite a mammoth financial disparity compared to Chelsea both in terms of wages AND transfer fees. As a contrast, you just have a relatively small wage disparity, and a financial transfer ADVANTAGE compared to the winning team (us), so you don't have a leg to stand on Murph.
RAWK have a 4 page thread ranting about referee's and how the league is corrupt
True. There would surely be a clearly smaller gap now.Those figures are now out of date. We've got rid of 2 of our biggest earners, whilst you've just increased the contracts of most of your biggest earners, and possibly made Glen Johnson the highest paid full-back in Europe.
One other thing, as a percentage of revenue United have the lowest wage ratio in the entire Premier League. And I don't really mind that we reward our players for success with good contracts. You pay your players £90m a year for feck all. And that's on top of being the biggest transfer spenders outside the billionaires. Obscene, whatever way you look at it Murph.
Liverpool fans go on about buying less players over £15 million. However they have bought a lot of players between around £5-12 million and maybe in some of those instances they would have been better off not buying these and going for a more expensive player who could have made a significant impact for them. And we have been able to spend big money by selling players for considerable amounts at times. It should also be borne in mind that renovating the stadium over various periods has provided the club with increased revenue. Remember how we spent relatively little for most of the 90s. The only year in the 90s we spent huge money was 1998. And some years this decade we've spent relatively little or made a profit.Liverpool spent more on transfers in the 90s than us.
Another thing is that Benitez is able to get significant revenue by being in the Champions League every season by finishing third, fourth etc. And he didn't exactly inherit a complete rabble of a squad when you think about it.
- Status