• Participation within this 'World Football' is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC" part 3

Jacob said:
Paul Joyce 's Times article on TAA's England situation is very critical of Southgate experimenting and playing him further forward. He omits to say that he wouldnt get a game otherwise, of course. Heres an extract.... View attachment 138155
Click to expand...

Gareth Southgate is the most successful England manager in our lifetimes. He knows what he's doing. Paul Joyce patently doesn't.
 

Jacob said:
Paul Joyce 's Times article on TAA's England situation is very critical of Southgate experimenting and playing him further forward. He omits to say that he wouldnt get a game otherwise, of course. Heres an extract.... View attachment 138155
Click to expand...
Klopp was talking the other day about TAA eventually moving into midfield so is Joyce going to criticise him also? No I did'nt think so.
 
Lapeno77 said:
Interesting read. Perhaps a little unnerving for some...

Click to expand...


A good thread. No doubt the FSG out bedwetters will not read or understand it.

The key take outs for me;
1) The only reason they are not massively in debt is because of player sales profit. They've made over 300m doing this. You have that at a net neutral and the 60m loss last year, and 200m ish loss this year will be added to with another 300m on top. It is not a very sustainable business model and relies in player sales to make it work. If you have a downturn in the market, it will effect them badly, over a medium term period.

2) Any improvements have been swallowed by costs. Again not really a very good sign for a business. They have grown turnover but have precious little profit/cash to show for it. Costs are out of control to be absolutely frank.

3) They are a cash negative business. They have lost 160m in cash terms under FSG and only through loans are they in a cash positive situation.

4) Loans/debt is growing. Now at 270m and that is before this years accounts which will increase that much further. Crucially if you take out owners contribution and look at external debt, it sits at 200m which is up around 400%.
 
catcherintherye said:
A good thread. No doubt the FSG out bedwetters will not read or understand it.

The key take outs for me;
1) The only reason they are not massively in debt is because of player sales profit. They've made over 300m doing this. You have that at a net neutral and the 60m loss last year, and 200m ish loss this year will be added to with another 300m on top. It is not a very sustainable business model and relies in player sales to make it work. If you have a downturn in the market, it will effect them badly, over a medium term period.

2) Any improvements have been swallowed by costs. Again not really a very good sign for a business. They have grown turnover but have precious little profit/cash to show for it. Costs are out of control to be absolutely frank.

3) They are a cash negative business. They have lost 160m in cash terms under FSG and only through loans are they in a cash positive situation.

4) Loans/debt is growing. Now at 270m and that is before this years accounts which will increase that much further. Crucially if you take out owners contribution and look at external debt, it sits at 200m which is up around 400%.
Click to expand...
Good post. Commercially they are struggling too. Financially we are in a much stronger position then they are and I reckon we'll be above them in 4-5 years.
 
Simon Buttle said:
Klopp was talking the other day about TAA eventually moving into midfield so is Joyce going to criticise him also? No I did'nt think so.
Click to expand...
Its looking more like a necessity rather than an eventuality. TAA 's flame is flickering over there and he looks increasingly unhappy defensively. They havent got the shore leave money to pee up the wall on a new midfield name so TAA' s modification suits them dollar wise. I only watched snippets of the game yesterday as I couldn't bear to watch "Jethro" Henderson lumbering round spraying useless passes. From what I did see, TAA shouldnt hold his breath about the experiment being repeated. Theres plenty of ready made personnel in that busy midfield already in spite of Lineker's latest plea to "just play him anywhere"
 

Jacob said:
Paul Joyce 's Times article on TAA's England situation is very critical of Southgate experimenting and playing him further forward. He omits to say that he wouldnt get a game otherwise, of course. Heres an extract.... View attachment 138155
Click to expand...
I try my best to avoid watching them as their spawniness winds me up too much.

TAA seems to do a good job for them going forward and puts some decent balls in. He is their best RB. Unfortunately for him, England have three others who can do that but are also better defensively.

Is it not just that simple?
 
derek duvall said:
Good post. Commercially they are struggling too. Financially we are in a much stronger position then they are and I reckon we'll be above them in 4-5 years.
Click to expand...

Thanks Derek.

Unfortunately we will probably have to agree to disagree on the above. Commercially they have done very well (in no small part due to winning a couple of trophies). The point with them is not that they have not commercially over performed, but that during that time they have not been able to post any real profits and remain very reliant on player trading.

I'm not convinced we will get above them in that time. FSG are quite solid. You never know with football of course but given the money they can spend on wages, it will be tough to do so. They are spending hundreds of million more than us, every year on wages. Last season that translated to a 10 point difference.

We are not in a financially stronger position, but our privately owed debt will be a lot lower.
 

derek duvall said:
Good post. Commercially they are struggling too. Financially we are in a much stronger position then they are and I reckon we'll be above them in 4-5 years.
Click to expand...
The revenue gap between both clubs before Covid was almost £350 million, £189 million to £533 million, and it was an even bigger gap in the last results posted during Covid.

You are getting way ahead of yourself, Unless you are actually Usmanov and have decided to sponsor Goodison for £400 million a season.

They just snagged Man United's Commercial Director as well, who'd been in the job when Woodward left the role to be Chief Executive.
 
Last edited:
EverTheOptimist said:
The revenue gap between both clubs before Covid was almost £350 million, £189 million to £533 million, and it was an even bigger gap in the last results posted during Covid.

You are getting way ahead of yourself, Unless you are actually Usmanov and have decided to sponsor Goodison for £400 million a season.

They just snagged Man United's Commercial Director as well, who'd been in the job when Woodward left the role to be Chief Executive.
Click to expand...

I mean the results post Covid still count (strong business are able to withstand shocks and keep growing) but the overall point is correct. Their issue is not revenue size or growth (albeit their revenues have been shrinking) but that despite having impressive revenue growth they cannot turn a profit without player sales. That would be the concern, and partially explains that without big player sales their just isn't the slack in the system to generate numerous big buys.
 
catcherintherye said:
I mean the results post Covid still count (strong business are able to withstand shocks and keep growing) but the overall point is correct. Their issue is not revenue size or growth (albeit their revenues have been shrinking) but that despite having impressive revenue growth they cannot turn a profit without player sales. That would be the concern, and partially explains that without big player sales their just isn't the slack in the system to generate numerous big buys.
Click to expand...
I don't get the theory or importance of profit for football clubs, most clubs barely make any anyway, its usually single to low double digits, it really doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, a club making a loss is still going to spend money on transfers, Banks have no qualms giving money to football clubs, even a pandemic clubs still survive.

You only have to see the elite clubs, with debt and huge turnovers, still spending huge on wages and transfers, profit is the least of the worries for the elite, they are printing money anyway, bigger stadium matchday revenues, CL revenues, huge TV and commercial revenues, lucrative pre season tours and you can see why they service any debt with ease while spending while reporting losses.

The best run club in the World, Bayern Munich before Covid, their profit was £17 million and they had a £570 million turnover then.

Turnover and growth is king in football finance, it's what makes the headlines, profit is hardly ever mentioned because clubs don't make much of it.

Check this Deloitte list of the top 20 clubs in the world, page 14 onwards, profit isn't even mentioned on any club results.

 
catcherintherye said:
A good thread. No doubt the FSG out bedwetters will not read or understand it.

The key take outs for me;
1) The only reason they are not massively in debt is because of player sales profit. They've made over 300m doing this. You have that at a net neutral and the 60m loss last year, and 200m ish loss this year will be added to with another 300m on top. It is not a very sustainable business model and relies in player sales to make it work. If you have a downturn in the market, it will effect them badly, over a medium term period.

2) Any improvements have been swallowed by costs. Again not really a very good sign for a business. They have grown turnover but have precious little profit/cash to show for it. Costs are out of control to be absolutely frank.

3) They are a cash negative business. They have lost 160m in cash terms under FSG and only through loans are they in a cash positive situation.

4) Loans/debt is growing. Now at 270m and that is before this years accounts which will increase that much further. Crucially if you take out owners contribution and look at external debt, it sits at 200m which is up around 400%.
Click to expand...

This is why those being so confident of a sale shouldn’t be so absolutely certain. As the saying goes ‘if the cash don’t flow, just say no’, and the cash is not flowing there at the moment. That therefore leaves any potential buyer with only a few options: 1) raising revenue, difficult to do when the stadium is already expanded and the club are in CL already charging some of the highest ticket prices. 2) Operating at a loss for the ego boost of owning Liverpool - not many billionaires got where they are through losing money. 3) Cutting costs - will be murder with the fan base.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top