Liverpool FC Thread

by **Crimey** Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:10 pm

First topic message reminder :

Liverpool FC

Transfers in:

Fabio Borini (£11 million)
Joe Allen (£15 million)
Joe Cole (return from loan)
Oussama Assaidi (£2.4 million)
Nuri Sahin (on loan)
Samed Yesil (£1 million)

Transfers out:

Dirk Kuyt (£1 million)
Maxi Rodriguez (Free)
Fabio Aurelio (Free)
Alberto Aquilani (£7 million)
Craig Bellamy (Free)
Andy Carroll (loan)
Jay Spearing (loan)
Charlie Adam (£4 million)

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:38 pm

Liver that is complete rubbish, sorry for telling you that. Any good accountant will work on this subjectivity you call it, an accountant can value any way he sees fit!(Edit.... as long as you apply the practise i mentioned before- assets must be valued at cost or less). I am a qualified acca accountant though, so i do know this.

Not one football club writes of players purchasing costs year 1. that is madness to suggest such a thing- they are valued as assets on the balance sheet

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:40 pm

right you ave completly changed your post lol- numpty!! haha

your quoting stuff but you dont even know what it means.

Its simple -0 palyers are not sunk costs!

understand. the fact that you even bring up NRV should explain that to you. nrv = net residual value- yet you say they arnt valued at a residual value.

you cannot apply a full cost in year one(sunk cost) and still have an NRV!!

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:47 pm

mystiroakey wrote:Liver that is complete rubbish, sorry for telling you that. Any good accountant will work on this subjectivity you call it, an accountant can value any way he sees fit!. I am a qualified acca accountant though, so i do know this.

Not one football club writes of players purchasing costs year 1. that is madness to suggest such a thing- they are valued as assets on the balance sheet

I never said they write the cost off in year 1, quite the opposite. You are not reading my post correctly. The 35m will not be considered when selling Andy Carroll, therefore in this scenario it is sunk. The 35m has been paid, there is no getting that back.

You may well be a qualified ACCA accountant but you clearly do not work on accounts for football clubs. The transfer fee is spread over the entire length of the contract until is reaches zero at the end. There is no adjustment for player's ages and no residual value and once the intial contract period ends there is no more amortised cost for the club on the player in question.

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:52 pm

mystiroakey wrote:right you ave completly changed your post lol- numpty!! haha

your quoting stuff but you dont even know what it means.

Its simple -0 palyers are not sunk costs!

understand. the fact that you even bring up NRV should explain that to you. nrv = net residual value- yet you say they arnt valued at a residual value.

you cannot apply a full cost in year one(sunk cost) and still have an NRV!!

I said footballers have no residual value = no value at the end of their intial contract on the balance sheet.

I said Carroll will be currently valued at NBV (Net book value) which is his intial cost minus amortisation.

It's pretty simple.

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:54 pm

Liver you said its a sunk cost- you obviously dont understand what a sunk cost is. There is no sunk cost applied on the p&l or balance sheet unless a player was on a one year contract

On a side note I brought up a few different examples of how we can depreciate assets- thats all

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:55 pm

Liver you need to stop saying stupid things like sunk costs and then try and get out of it- You even applied your logic to all businesses not just football clubs!

I just corrected you- its that simple

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:09 pm

No you didn't mystir, you tried to apply simple depreciation methods to intangible assets - in this case footballers.

"buy player for 35 mill
contract 5 years(minus one or two years- because you cant sell a player out of contract)
estimated selling price after3 years= 20 mill"

"If the accountants were prudent with a purchase of a 32 year old playe for 9m who signed under a 3 year contract (they realise they will never sell him on and he will retire), the cost to the business would be 3 mill a year- or they could even depreciate it 5 mill year 1, 3 mill year 2 and 1 mill year 3. Because they could assume that the player will become less effective later on in his contract"

Those 2 points are complete and utter rubbish when valuing footballers.

I'll agree with you that my use of sunk cost was incorrect. HOwever you other points are way of kilter.

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:14 pm

They were two examples that's all. I was trying to give you a basic insight after reading your sunk cost comment which you applied to all businesses

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:23 pm

Well as I said, I shouldn't have used sunk cost and you are quite right the cost is not 'sunk'. What I was trying to convey was that the 35m will not come into consideration when Liverpool are selling Andy Carroll as they already have 1.5 years use of him. In the same way a business wouldn't if they bought a piece of machinery, used it for a bit, then sold it.

Also, In fairness you tried to apply your examples to footballers, which in reality is not the case which was the other point I was trying to make.

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:43 pm

Well the reality is is that the real cost of the player to the football club is closer to my examples. Because we all know that players are sold on more than not. NRV is obviously a very easy way of applying the cost of the player to the p@l but in truth it isnt going to give us a true balance sheet ..

If we gave any set off accounts to any two different accountants they will come up with different p@l's and balance sheets, because accounting isnt straight forward.

I do agree that the 35m should have no bearing to what they sell carrol for, so yes i do understand that point completely. They need to look at market value - not original cost and certainly not NRV.

the problem is though it does have a bearing from certain owners point of view- but thats an ego issue which sometimes can hurt the business, but the owner could be looking at the reality that they sold torres for 50 m so got carrol plus 15m. Which was the crux of it. They paid way over the odds because there were sitting ducks at the time

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:44 pm

Anyway, it seems Alan Pardew would be happy to see Andy Carroll return:

"We have got a great team here, a great squad, and if Andy Carroll comes, it will only add to us.

"It's simple, really. Sometimes transfers are done at corporate level. I'm slightly detached from that. It will be what it will be.

"It's been said that he's available and if we are involved, then we will be involved because of the figures, not anything else, because we know he's good enough."

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:02 pm

Mystir

It's probably the most logical way of valuing players atm. There are issues with it, as when players are sold, profit or loss on the sale is calculated on their current value on the b/s and this is recorded in a single set of accounts which can distort the bottom line for that period

It's very difficult to guage MV for players as they are likley to fluctuate dramatically from one season (or even game these days!) to the next. Take for example Fernando Torres. Chelsea bought him for 50m. He was probably worth that at that time. 4 months on and his value would have dramtically sunk. These sort of fluctuations could see football clubs appear healthy one moment and then techincally insolvent the next.

When Liverpool are selling Andy Carroll they will be trying to make minimal loss on the 25.5m book value as this will affect how thay act the rest of the transfer window due to the FFP rules.

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:13 pm

Liver you are correct- i take it you have been reading up on it!!

the fact is we cant overvalue players based on Market value(for instance ronaldo was clearly worth more than what united paid for him after a year or 2), because that isnt prudent, but what you have to understand about valueing players is that it still 'cant' be as simple as the 'apportion the cost exactly into the contract length'.

You have to value assets at cost or less.

Football clubs will have insurance against certain potential issues and losses, they have monetary agreements with the clubs they have purchased players on based on performance or on how often they play. I didnt want to get into all the nuts and bolts of it and used basic examples. Because it really is very complicacted when companys have assets over a contracted length, it isnt allways as simple as a 5 year lease of a piece of machinary

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:21 pm

Mystir

I seem to be always reading something on football finance ever since Hicks and Gillet and now FFP.

And techincally players are always either valued on the b/s at cost (in their first year) or less (each year until intial contract ends).

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:24 pm

"

High
quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this
article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the
article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/98faaa4a-18f1-11da-8fe9-00000e2511c8.html#ixzz20syikES4

It also called into question whether players should be recorded as assets, given the risks associated with their contracts. "We suspect they are being recorded at too high a number," Mr Livne said.

"In accounting terms, this would mean that reported intangible assets on clubs' balance sheets should be written down," he said. "This would reduce reported profitability even further and means [clubs] would be even less profitable than they already appear.""

that is a quote from an FT article in 2005. showing that players were actually in many cases recorded on the blanace sheet at cost and not at an apportioned cost.. I am not sure how clubs value there assets these days- but i would suggest that they are all doing it however they want to show a certain profit or a loss based on there own objectives as all companies do.

Basically the point i am making is that they can value the players anyway they want(as long as its cost or below cost) and there is no specific way of doing things at football clubs

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:33 pm

All of the sets of accounts I have looked at value players at cost minus accumalted amortisation, i.e. amortised cost with the amostisation being wirtten off in the P/L or Income Statement as it is now. I think that is the accepted standard for valutaion, certainly amongst English clubs.

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:37 pm

That could and should be the way it is done, we should have consitancy. But i dont think it has to be the way its done. Do you know if they have to abide by this, maybe that article was the start of making it law. All the same i dont think it is. It could be very easy for a football club to boost profits based on these intangible assets to get cheaper lending etc, its very much common place in business.

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:40 pm

we only have to look at rangers to see what can happen to football clubs!!

I garantee they had a too higher credit rating than they should have to get so much lending in the first place based on over valued accounts.

Its the way of the world. overvaluing assets is why we are in the economic crisis today.

by liverbnz Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:56 pm

I'm not sure if football clubs have to abide by that standard, but I haven't seen any recent cases that don't.

I think a lot of issues with football clubs and their finances is that lot of debt is secured against future revenues, which is not a very clever ploy. For instance, if Sky didn't renew their TV contract to show live PL games a lot of clubs would go to the wall almost immediately.

Also club's like Man City are making the situation 10 times worse. They spent 1 billiion to win the PL. That's where the bar has been raised to. Yet their wages expenses alone are way over 100% of their revenues which is just not sustainable.

Anyway, I think I've taken this thread waaayy of topic. Apologies Crimey/moderators.

by mystiroakey Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:02 pm

My suggestion in football is simple.

no limits on wages or spending directly. but a limit on debt/equity ratio. say 70% equity to 30% debt

If an owner wants to pay for the next big player, he can but he has to add equity not as a personal loan. Theoritically Roman could bring chelase to its knees if he demanded his money back, its no different in the eyes of the law than barca or man u owing millions to banks- that is a situation we shouldnt be in.

by **Kenny** Wed Jul 18, 2012 6:08 pm

Has anyone else heard the rumour Rodgers wants 15 million cash plus Demba Ba for Carroll ? mate sent me that this morning

by MetalMotty Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:22 pm

i had heard that one a few weeks back but hadnt heard anything of it till you mentioned. interesting move for both clubs.
Hasnt Demba Ba got a really low asking price in his contract

by Small Time Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:29 pm

Something like £7 million isn't it? But his actual value to newcastle against the actual Value of Carroll to Liverpool are polls apart.

by **Kenny** Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:44 pm

Liverpool will face either FK Renova from Macedonia or FC Gomel of Belarus in the Europa League third qualifying round.

by **Crimey** Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:51 pm

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Liverpool will face either FK Renova from Macedonia or FC Gomel of Belarus in the Europa League third qualifying round.

I hope Rodgers plays fairly strong sides for these qualifying rounds, as if the players suffer the embarrassment of leaving the tournament that early, morale was start really low.

by **Kenny** Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:55 pm

I hope he takes it serious aswell , these are games to get the side playing in a manner he wants much more then friendly games

by **Crimey** Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:05 pm

Suarez and Coates in action right now for Uruguay.

Coates is growing on me after a few poor performances at the beginning of his time at Liverpool, you can see why he is so highly rated.

by Soldier_Of_Fortune Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:13 am

Ramirez to Liverpool seems to be snowballing aswell. Finally a Winger!!!

by **Crimey** Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:24 am

The problem is that the rumours seem to be growing essentially just because he's in England and his agent has come to England, but obviously that could be just to do with the Olympics.

by **Kenny** Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:21 pm

West Ham bid 17 million for Andy Carroll , no comment from Liverpool as yet

by liverbnz Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:04 am

Alberto Aquilani has been told he's free to find another club. Fiorentina the likely destination.

From Ben Smith, BBC.

by **Crimey** Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:13 am

Apparently a bid has already been accepted, and it's to make room for Joe Allen.

by liverbnz Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:44 am

Sometimes I feel for Aquilani, other times I just wished the sorry saga was over. Not one of Rafa Benitez's better days no matter what the circumstances were surrounding the transfer. Still, not as bad as Robbie Keane though Smile

by **Crimey** Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:47 am

I'd rather keep Aquilani than Cole.

by liverbnz Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:49 am

So would I to be honest, but I guess Rodger's has had a look at Aquilani and made his decision. I also think Cole would be harder to shift and we might as well get rid of one and make use of the wages on someone younger and hungrier.

by ncfc_Tooze Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:26 am

We have been linked with your keeper Brad Jones today.

by **Kenny** Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:32 pm

Liverpool have turned down 2 bids from Man City for Daniel Agger

by nasisillmatic Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:38 pm

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Liverpool have turned down 2 bids from Man City for Daniel Agger

It won't be long until Barca come calling.

I wouldn't blame him for leaving, a player of his talent deserves to be playing for one of the best teams in the world.

by **Kenny** Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:42 pm

nasisillmatic wrote:
KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Liverpool have turned down 2 bids from Man City for Daniel Agger

It won't be long until Barca come calling.

I wouldn't blame him for leaving, a player of his talent deserves to be playing for one of the best teams in the world.

I would be sad to see him leave , but i do feel if someone pays 20 million + given his injury record then it could be good business . The last offer from City was in the 15 mill region so if they are serious and Barca do come calling then 20 mill might not be out of reach

by **Crimey** Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:43 pm

I just can't see us getting a decent replacement. I'd rather lose Skrtel than Agger.

by nasisillmatic Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:49 pm

Even if we get 20 million losing a player of Agger's quality is a massive blow.

He is one of the most complete centre backs around, who I think would impose himself even more going forward under Roger's tactics.

by liverbnz Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:56 pm

Tony Barrett in The Times says we would consider a large enough offer that would enable BR to make 2/3 signings. I think that's an idiotic message to send out. What must Agger be thinking when he hears of that? We must be one of the worst clubs in the world when it comes to transfers and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

Our defence is the most solid part of our team, and Agger is the best part of that. There are very few defenders in the world that can offer us what Agger does. Granted he is injury prone, but he had no muscle injuries last season which was his main problem before his back surgery and we will find him very difficult to replace.

by **Kenny** Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:58 pm

Unfortunatley i dont think we are in a psition to stop either leaving if the right bid comes in

by **Crimey** Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:02 pm

I'm feeling a lot less positive this year than I did last year. While it was far from perfect last year, everything was really positive. New owners, popular manager who loved the club, and lots of positive signings.

This year, the search for the new manager wasn't great, Rodgers rejected us twice which suggests his heart isn't really in it, one new signing with more talk of outgoings than incomings.

Of people leaving, I don't think Adam would be a huge loss but there is pretty much no interest in him so we may as well keep him. I'd like to see us letting Cole go, and possibly Aquilani. Other than that I don't really want to see anybody else leaving.

We need at least one winger and I will be pretty disappointed and confused if we don't get one, ideally we need two. Our defence needs to be kept together. It's the foundation on which the team should be built. If Rodgers does let Agger go, it suggests he doesn't understand where our strengths lie.

by **Crimey** Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:03 pm

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Unfortunatley i dont think we are in a psition to stop either leaving if the right bid comes in

I hope, that Agger will stand by the club as the club stood by him through all his injury troubles.

Skrtel was a player who struggled for a long time, and the club has developed him into a defender at the top of his game.

by liverbnz Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:03 pm

KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Unfortunatley i dont think we are in a psition to stop either leaving if the right bid comes in

Maybe not but we offer them a new improved contract based on their excellent performances these last few years (last year for Skrtel) and tell them how important they are to the club. Announcing that they can go for a certain price and treating them as an asset on the balance sheet is completely the wrong way to go about it.

Force them to stay like Levy did with Modric and fix other areas of the team that need it. Then ensure Coates and Wisdom/Kelly are given enough appearances in order to have them ready to replace one or both if either are looking out next summer again.

by **Crimey** Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:06 pm

It's the way that our dealings in the transfer window have been handled so far that is so frustrating. The only two players who have been publically assured are Joe Cole ( Headscratch

) and Suarez.

The moment we sell one of our top assets, the precedent has been set and other clubs will swoop in for the others.

by nasisillmatic Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:20 pm

Crimey wrote:
KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Unfortunatley i dont think we are in a psition to stop either leaving if the right bid comes in

I hope, that Agger will stand by the club as the club stood by him through all his injury troubles.

Skrtel was a player who struggled for a long time, and the club has developed him into a defender at the top of his game.

The injury problems are not his fault though so you cannot blame him. I just hope that if he leaves for Barca the fans don't turn on him.

by Soldier_Of_Fortune Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:19 pm

Crimey wrote:I just can't see us getting a decent replacement. I'd rather lose Skrtel than Agger.

Couldn't agree more! I would be gutted if he left.

by **Kenny** Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:30 am

liverbnz wrote:
KingKenny7Heaven wrote:Unfortunatley i dont think we are in a psition to stop either leaving if the right bid comes in

Maybe not but we offer them a new improved contract based on their excellent performances these last few years (last year for Skrtel) and tell them how important they are to the club. Announcing that they can go for a certain price and treating them as an asset on the balance sheet is completely the wrong way to go about it.

Force them to stay like Levy did with Modric and fix other areas of the team that need it. Then ensure Coates and Wisdom/Kelly are given enough appearances in order to have them ready to replace one or both if either are looking out next summer again.

I agree thats what i would do , im just not sure thats what the club will do .

by Sponsored content