Kuyt deal not done

[Nathan Explosion]

Refer to http://www.ynwa.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=105889.

[Dominus Maximus]

What is the status on this player/deal? It seems like agees since the deal was "done"

[owenthomas]

just so you know where we ended up with the last thread it was kinda like this: he's still unsigned and Newcastle are now interested and will probably pay more than us as we are skint.. we've also come to the conclusion that the price - believed to be 10m - is worth paying..

 

as you were..

[RBM]

Has he signed yet?

[Gomez]

just so you know where we ended up with the last thread it was kinda like this: he's still unsigned and Newcastle are now interested and will probably pay more than us as we are skint.. we've also come to the conclusion that the price - believed to be 10m - is worth paying..

 

as you were..

 

 

You forgot to mention that Parry is out of order for not paying more money that we have and he should pull his finger out and gamble our long term future on short term gain.

 

Living within our means is a mugs game.

[Leo No.8]

You forgot to mention that Parry is out of order for not paying more money that we have and he should pull his finger out and gamble our long term future on short term gain.

 

Living within our means is a mugs game.

 

Its pretty tragic if we can't spend more than the £13m or so we've laid out so far though isn't it? Even after getting the likes of Cisse and Morientes off the wage bill and having had two successful seasons.

 

To me Rafa has earned the right to spend £10m on his key striking target. It really isn't that much to ask is it, whoever is in charge of the purse strings.

 

If we really haven't got £10m to spend on Kuyt where has the money gone? I've been quite happy to see the club working hard to try not to pay over the odds (ie Alves), but this time the figure we're talking about just isn't over the odds at all.

 

We struggled to score goals last season, have let two strikers go and brought just one in. Anyone who thinks that makes sense needs their head examining.

[RafaShanks]

Our transfer stance this summer simply hasn't worked. Understood the Alves saga, but then we paid over the odds with Pennant.

 

We're lucky in the sense that Kuyt only seems to want to leave Feyenoord for us.

 

Have to agree with all of Leo's points above.

[AnfieldCop]

Its pretty tragic if we can't spend more than the £13m or so we've laid out so far though isn't it? Even after getting the likes of Cisse and Morientes off the wage bill and having had two successful seasons.

 

To me Rafa has earned the right to spend £10m on his key striking target. It really isn't that much to ask is it, whoever is in charge of the purse strings.

 

If we really haven't got £10m to spend on Kuyt where has the money gone? I've been quite happy to see the club working hard to try not to pay over the odds (ie Alves), but this time the figure we're talking about just isn't over the odds at all.

 

We struggled to score goals last season, have let two strikers go and brought just one in. Anyone who thinks that makes sense needs their head examining.

 

Well said Leo.

[Guest RedIsMyColour]

10m for Kuyt is too much anyway.

 

If he does come I cannot see him being prolific

[Gravy]

Its pretty tragic if we can't spend more than the £13m or so we've laid out so far though isn't it? Even after getting the likes of Cisse and Morientes off the wage bill and having had two successful seasons.

 

To me Rafa has earned the right to spend £10m on his key striking target. It really isn't that much to ask is it, whoever is in charge of the purse strings.

 

If we really haven't got £10m to spend on Kuyt where has the money gone? I've been quite happy to see the club working hard to try not to pay over the odds (ie Alves), but this time the figure we're talking about just isn't over the odds at all.

 

We struggled to score goals last season, have let two strikers go and brought just one in. Anyone who thinks that makes sense needs their head examining.

 

Spot on. I think it is more of a case of the money not being there to start with, not where has it gone.

 

People have been banging on about 30 million transfer budgets every year for as long as this site has been going. They are dreaming. When was the last time we spent 30 million net in a summer.

 

It's easy to assume we have money as we are LFC, the most successful club in England and after winning the CL should have pots of cash. Well, wqe don't. Look at the loss we made the year before winning the CL. Rafa and the team saved the Chairman and the CEO with the CL run and also the immediate future of the football club. Imagine the state we'd be in if we hadn't had that run. If we can't afford 10 million for Kuyt now, what would we have been able to afford without that CL run?

 

The new adidas kit is the same money as the Reebok deal, so we don't get any more money there. We get a vast increase this season on Sky money and yet don't seem to be able to spend it on transfers. Completely fecjked up the sponsorship deal with Carlsberg and got a pittance from them for the season (s) following our CL win (until April 05 we didn't even have a sponsor for the following season and so Carlsberg bailed us out but at a good price for them) We've spent a load of cash on a ground that is never going to happen. We made a £20 million loss three years ago. Any reason why I shouldn't think the buck stops with Parry?

[owenthomas]

10m for Kuyt is too much anyway.

 

If he does come I cannot see him being prolific

don't tell me - you're concerned, right?

[Guest Red Flame]

Liverpool's financial profile from a business analyst

 

Makes for sobering reading .......

 

Winners with losses

 

David Moores did a masterful job of returning his Liverpool Reds to glory on the pitch. But his refusal to yield control of the club has led to financial strains and a decline in its value.

In December 2004 David Moores, chairman of and largest investor in the fabled Liverpool Reds, appeared to be distraught as he addressed his soccer team's board. Moores fretted that the financially strapped club would have to scuttle plans for a $290 million stadium. But the stadium was needed to bring in receipts the Reds needed to remain competitive on the pitch against much wealthier rivals like Manchester United and Chelsea.

 

"These past 12 months have not been easy," said Moores during the meeting. "We are looking at all roads to get investment into this club, including offers already on the table."

 

A full year and a surprise Champions League (all-European tournament) title later, the club's inner circle must have been shocked to hear the same sentiments from Moores. The team posted 2005 operating losses (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation) of $2.9 million despite $52 million in bonus revenue from European competition. We estimate that the value of Liverpool fell 11% in the past year, to $392 million.

 

How could the finances be so dismal? The club had come to life under new coach Rafael Benitez and such star players as midfielder Steven Gerrard and defender Jamie Carragher. Entering last spring's European competition a heavy underdog, it faced overhauled rival Chelsea in the Champions semifinals. After dispatching "Roman's Army," as the property of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich is known, Liverpool won a come-from-behind upset of Italian powerhouse AC Milan. It was the fifth such title in the team's storied history, dating to 1892.

 

Following the Champions tourney hysteria, Liverpool's fan base soared to 18 million people worldwide, from just 8 million the year before, according to German sports consultant Sport & Markt AG. Besides collecting the bonus revenue, a record number of visitors to the club's Web site generated $1.2 million last year, 11 times 2004 Web-related revenue. Moores has since ironed out a contractual dispute with shirt sponsor Reebok, yielding a more lucrative six-year pact that could be worth $180 million on top of another deal with Adidas. He also extended the club's 12-year sponsorship by Danish brewer Carlsberg, the longest-running commercial partnership in England's elite Premier League.

 

Despite Liverpool's rebound on the pitch, it has taken Moores' total commitment and financial legwork just to keep the lights on. The risky business of selling one player to pay another helped the Reds post an accounting profit in 2005, but a $115 million payroll, at 73% of ex-Champions League revenue, is too rich. Had Liverpool missed qualifying for the 2005 Champions bracket, the club very well could have been running $55 million short of breath.

 

Just as in U.S. professional sports, an upset victory on the field does not end financial difficulty. (Remember the Florida Marlins?) An undercapitalized, small-market team like Liverpool cannot consistently compete with big-city, rich clubs like ManU, Chelsea or Arsenal (also of London) without a modern stadium. The Reds pull in only $59 million from stadium revenues; ManU gets more than double that.

 

With a capacity of only 45,000, Liverpool's Anfield can't come close to accommodating the crowds Manchester United packs into its Old Trafford stadium (68,000, expanding to 76,000 this year). Worse, Liverpool's ticket prices are lower. Match-day revenue contributed only 27% of total income for Liverpool, a far cry from the 38% to 42% seen at rivals ManU, Newcastle United and Chelsea.

 

Making matters worse, a new broadcasting agreement for the Premier League will diminish fees paid out to soccer clubs. This particularly hurts Liverpool, whose fans travel the farthest of any Premier club (50 miles on average) to home matches, according to research consultant SportsWise.

 

One way to boost operating income would be to solicit some new equity capital and invest in a new stadium. But Moores, who owns 51% of the team, is not enthusiastic about diluting his stake. (He declines to be interviewed on the subject.)

 

There is equity money to be had from, for example, the owner of the NFL's New England Patriots, Robert Kraft. The billionaire has reportedly offered to bankroll up to $100 million of the proposed construction of Liverpool's new stadium in return for a minority stake and has even hosted Liverpool Chief Executive Richard Parry at Foxboro Stadium in the U.S. Who better to have as an investor than Kraft, who pumped $350 million of his own money into a new stadium for a Patriots franchise he bought for $172 million in 1994 and turned into a three-time Super Bowl champion and the third-most-valuable football team, worth $1 billion. Kraft also owns the New England Revolution of Major League Soccer.

 

Prior to Kraft, Thailand's wealthy Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made intimations that he, the Thai government or private Thai companies (depending on the day) had interest in the cornered club. But wrinkles in how a 30% stake worth up to $110 million would be financed dissolved talks prematurely. By far Liverpool's most visible suitor has been Moores' fellow club director, centimillionaire British businessman Steven Morgan. Boardroom bickering spilled over once again this past February at the club's annual general meeting as Morgan, now the third-largest shareholder, contended that Liverpool's debt burden ($47 million) meant he should get a discount on buying a majority stake.

 

As early as 2004's general meeting, it was Morgan's wife who voiced her frustration over spurned attempts by her husband to scoop up shares in the club. "Here is a local, successful businessman willing to put millions into this club," said Didy Morgan. "Yet we are still waiting by the phone."

 

Morgan, flush from a likely sale of his stake in a hotel group, may renew his efforts to recapitalize the club. At some point, if the price gets high enough or the balance sheet strained enough, Moores might just take the money.

[Guest RedIsMyColour]

don't tell me - you're concerned, right?

 

I am more concerned about Carson and Pallettta

[owenthomas]

 

..Liverpool Reds

should i continue reading after we've been labled as such?

[Guest Red Flame]

should i continue reading after we've been labled as such?

Yes.

 

It is written by an American but they are talking about finance not the merits of 4-1-3-2 over 4-4-2.

 

You will also be surprised at the level of appropriate knowledge shown about the English game.

[Gomez]

Its pretty tragic if we can't spend more than the £13m or so we've laid out so far though isn't it? Even after getting the likes of Cisse and Morientes off the wage bill and having had two successful seasons.

 

To me Rafa has earned the right to spend £10m on his key striking target. It really isn't that much to ask is it, whoever is in charge of the purse strings.

 

If we really haven't got £10m to spend on Kuyt where has the money gone? I've been quite happy to see the club working hard to try not to pay over the odds (ie Alves), but this time the figure we're talking about just isn't over the odds at all.

 

We struggled to score goals last season, have let two strikers go and brought just one in. Anyone who thinks that makes sense needs their head examining.

 

If we haven't got it, we haven't got it. Spending what we don't have leeds only in one direction. People are criticising Parry for not doing what would be tantamount to gross mismanagement.

 

I don't know where the money has gone, but neither does anyone else here (no matter what they tell you) but I suggest that we are still paying wages for people who aren't playing. We haven't got rid of Cisse, he is on loan, and who knows how much of his wages we are paying. Same goes for Kirkland, and by the looks of it Traore, Dudek and LeTallec. F*ck knows how much we had to pay off those we sold as well (Diouf, Cheyrou etc)

 

We lost money due to pulling out of lucrative tours last summer because of the early CL start, and because of that and the WC we didn't do one this year either for fear of buring out our players.

 

Spot on. I think it is more of a case of the money not being there to start with, not where has it gone.

 

The new adidas kit is the same money as the Reebok deal, so we don't get any more money there. We get a vast increase this season on Sky money and yet don't seem to be able to spend it on transfers. Completely fecjked up the sponsorship deal with Carlsberg and got a pittance from them for the season (s) following our CL win (until April 05 we didn't even have a sponsor for the following season and so Carlsberg bailed us out but at a good price for them) We've spent a load of cash on a ground that is never going to happen. We made a £20 million loss three years ago. Any reason why I shouldn't think the buck stops with Parry?

 

Because you don't know any of that, it's all supposition and hearsay.

[Dule]

SO unless Moores sells up, we are f***ed!!

 

Thats what that article is saying.

 

That is for all of you that cant be arsed reading it.

[Guest RedIsMyColour]

Money doesn't bring you happiness

[Gravy]

If we haven't got it, we haven't got it. Spending what we don't have leeds only in one direction. People are criticising Parry for not doing what would be tantamount to gross mismanagement.

 

I don't know where the money has gone, but neither does anyone else here (no matter what they tell you) but I suggest that we are still paying wages for people who aren't playing. We haven't got rid of Cisse, he is on loan, and who knows how much of his wages we are paying. Same goes for Kirkland, and by the looks of it Traore, Dudek and LeTallec. F*ck knows how much we had to pay off those we sold as well (Diouf, Cheyrou etc)

 

We lost money due to pulling out of lucrative tours last summer because of the early CL start, and because of that and the WC we didn't do one this year either for fear of buring out our players.

Because you don't know any of that, it's all supposition and hearsay.

 

I'm afraid most of that isn't supposition, and although comes second hand has been confirmed by various people who would know a lot more about the inner workings of LFC than both you and I.

[Guest Red Flame]

Spending what we don't have leeds only in one direction.

 

Ahhh, I see what you did there !! Clever, very clever Gomez !!

[Gravy]

If we haven't got it, we haven't got it. Spending what we don't have leeds only in one direction. People are criticising Parry for not doing what would be tantamount to gross mismanagement.

 

 

I'm criticising Parry not for not having it, but not going and getting it in the forms of sponsorship deals and marketing strategies. Instead, he's too busy flying the youth team's goalkeeping coach out to give him lessons while he is on pre-season tours (such as the US), when he should be utilising the fact that England's most successful club is in the richest country in the world and maybe trying to cut a few deals while he is there? Or is that just an stupid optomistic point of view?

Edited August 7, 2006 by Gravy

[RafaShanks]

Following the Champions tourney hysteria, Liverpool's fan base soared to 18 million people worldwide, from just 8 million the year before, according to German sports consultant Sport & Markt AG. Besides collecting the bonus revenue, a record number of visitors to the club's Web site generated $1.2 million last year, 11 times 2004 Web-related revenue. Moores has since ironed out a contractual dispute with shirt sponsor Reebok, yielding a more lucrative six-year pact that could be worth $180 million on top of another deal with Adidas. He also extended the club's 12-year sponsorship by Danish brewer Carlsberg, the longest-running commercial partnership in England's elite Premier League.

 

Still think due to our clubs non-agressive, piss poor marketing strategy, we lossed out on possible millions from our Istanbul triumph. The Reebok fiasco was a disaster.

 

I don't really wanna go too deep into it or embroiled into arguments with people, but there are certain times I get disheartened and the feeling we're run like a mid table Premiership club.

[Gravy]

Liverpool's financial profile from a business analyst

 

Makes for sobering reading .......

 

Winners with losses

 

David Moores did a masterful job of returning his Liverpool Reds to glory on the pitch. But his refusal to yield control of the club has led to financial strains and a decline in its value.

In December 2004 David Moores, chairman of and largest investor in the fabled Liverpool Reds, appeared to be distraught as he addressed his soccer team's board. Moores fretted that the financially strapped club would have to scuttle plans for a $290 million stadium. But the stadium was needed to bring in receipts the Reds needed to remain competitive on the pitch against much wealthier rivals like Manchester United and Chelsea.

 

"These past 12 months have not been easy," said Moores during the meeting. "We are looking at all roads to get investment into this club, including offers already on the table."

 

A full year and a surprise Champions League (all-European tournament) title later, the club's inner circle must have been shocked to hear the same sentiments from Moores. The team posted 2005 operating losses (in the sense of earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation) of $2.9 million despite $52 million in bonus revenue from European competition. We estimate that the value of Liverpool fell 11% in the past year, to $392 million.

 

How could the finances be so dismal? The club had come to life under new coach Rafael Benitez and such star players as midfielder Steven Gerrard and defender Jamie Carragher. Entering last spring's European competition a heavy underdog, it faced overhauled rival Chelsea in the Champions semifinals. After dispatching "Roman's Army," as the property of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich is known, Liverpool won a come-from-behind upset of Italian powerhouse AC Milan. It was the fifth such title in the team's storied history, dating to 1892.

 

Following the Champions tourney hysteria, Liverpool's fan base soared to 18 million people worldwide, from just 8 million the year before, according to German sports consultant Sport & Markt AG. Besides collecting the bonus revenue, a record number of visitors to the club's Web site generated $1.2 million last year, 11 times 2004 Web-related revenue. Moores has since ironed out a contractual dispute with shirt sponsor Reebok, yielding a more lucrative six-year pact that could be worth $180 million on top of another deal with Adidas. He also extended the club's 12-year sponsorship by Danish brewer Carlsberg, the longest-running commercial partnership in England's elite Premier League.

 

Despite Liverpool's rebound on the pitch, it has taken Moores' total commitment and financial legwork just to keep the lights on. The risky business of selling one player to pay another helped the Reds post an accounting profit in 2005, but a $115 million payroll, at 73% of ex-Champions League revenue, is too rich. Had Liverpool missed qualifying for the 2005 Champions bracket, the club very well could have been running $55 million short of breath.

 

Just as in U.S. professional sports, an upset victory on the field does not end financial difficulty. (Remember the Florida Marlins?) An undercapitalized, small-market team like Liverpool cannot consistently compete with big-city, rich clubs like ManU, Chelsea or Arsenal (also of London) without a modern stadium. The Reds pull in only $59 million from stadium revenues; ManU gets more than double that.

 

With a capacity of only 45,000, Liverpool's Anfield can't come close to accommodating the crowds Manchester United packs into its Old Trafford stadium (68,000, expanding to 76,000 this year). Worse, Liverpool's ticket prices are lower. Match-day revenue contributed only 27% of total income for Liverpool, a far cry from the 38% to 42% seen at rivals ManU, Newcastle United and Chelsea.

 

Making matters worse, a new broadcasting agreement for the Premier League will diminish fees paid out to soccer clubs. This particularly hurts Liverpool, whose fans travel the farthest of any Premier club (50 miles on average) to home matches, according to research consultant SportsWise.

 

One way to boost operating income would be to solicit some new equity capital and invest in a new stadium. But Moores, who owns 51% of the team, is not enthusiastic about diluting his stake. (He declines to be interviewed on the subject.)

 

There is equity money to be had from, for example, the owner of the NFL's New England Patriots, Robert Kraft. The billionaire has reportedly offered to bankroll up to $100 million of the proposed construction of Liverpool's new stadium in return for a minority stake and has even hosted Liverpool Chief Executive Richard Parry at Foxboro Stadium in the U.S. Who better to have as an investor than Kraft, who pumped $350 million of his own money into a new stadium for a Patriots franchise he bought for $172 million in 1994 and turned into a three-time Super Bowl champion and the third-most-valuable football team, worth $1 billion. Kraft also owns the New England Revolution of Major League Soccer.

 

Prior to Kraft, Thailand's wealthy Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra made intimations that he, the Thai government or private Thai companies (depending on the day) had interest in the cornered club. But wrinkles in how a 30% stake worth up to $110 million would be financed dissolved talks prematurely. By far Liverpool's most visible suitor has been Moores' fellow club director, centimillionaire British businessman Steven Morgan. Boardroom bickering spilled over once again this past February at the club's annual general meeting as Morgan, now the third-largest shareholder, contended that Liverpool's debt burden ($47 million) meant he should get a discount on buying a majority stake.

 

As early as 2004's general meeting, it was Morgan's wife who voiced her frustration over spurned attempts by her husband to scoop up shares in the club. "Here is a local, successful businessman willing to put millions into this club," said Didy Morgan. "Yet we are still waiting by the phone."

 

Morgan, flush from a likely sale of his stake in a hotel group, may renew his efforts to recapitalize the club. At some point, if the price gets high enough or the balance sheet strained enough, Moores might just take the money.

 

Sobering reading. But hey, he's only a business analyst, wtf does he know. Course we have loads of money and are in great financial shape - and this without the new stadium.

[IgPig]

Liverpool's financial profile from a business analyst

 

Makes for sobering reading .......

 

Winners with losses

 

David Moores did a masterful job of returning his Liverpool Reds to glory on the pitch. But his refusal to yield control of the club has led to financial strains and a decline in its value.

In December 2004 David Moores, chairman of and largest investor in the fabled Liverpool Reds,

 

 

.....and that's where I stop reading.

 

Sodding Yanks.

 

Incidentally - wasn't this thread about Kuyt? All's that will happen here is that Tim and/Or Rushian will come, post some facts and it will die a death as usually happens.

Edited August 7, 2006 by hamstrung

[Leo No.8]

If we haven't got it, we haven't got it. Spending what we don't have leeds only in one direction. People are criticising Parry for not doing what would be tantamount to gross mismanagement.

 

I don't know where the money has gone, but neither does anyone else here (no matter what they tell you) but I suggest that we are still paying wages for people who aren't playing. We haven't got rid of Cisse, he is on loan, and who knows how much of his wages we are paying. Same goes for Kirkland, and by the looks of it Traore, Dudek and LeTallec. F*ck knows how much we had to pay off those we sold as well (Diouf, Cheyrou etc)

 

I know what you're saying there Gomez, sadly I've kind of been clinging onto the idea that Rafa only decided to sign his contract extension because he was given reassurances regarding transfer funds for this summer.

 

Seems that simply wasn't the case, based on how much he has so far spent and by the fact that here we have a player Rafa clearly rates extremely highly, and by all accounts seems desperate to sign for Liverpool Football Club, yet we still can't afford to pay a fair market price for him.

 

Like I said, I felt Alves was over-priced considering his position in particular. We're not Madrid, we don't pay £12m for an attacking right-back and I'm not one of these people who go round shouting for big names and paying whatever. I agree we should be careful with our money, and maintain a reputation for doing so, to avoid being ripped off in future.

 

But Kuyt we really need, and if Feyenoord's valuation is £10m, we really should have paid it by now. I'm happy with the summer's dealings so far, but for me bringing in the right striker now could be the difference between challenging for the title and not.