Re: Football Chat : Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:11 pm
|
keithcun wrote: Now they don't, that's the last thing they should be doing. There's only the people within the club that need to know how much money is available for transfers. No stupid promises like the last two, they need to start with stability, look at the stadium, talk to the fans and look where they can go from here. Don't forget, H&G hadn't been here 10 minutes before they were trying to line Klinsmann up, which was the follow up to many, many lies, they didn't mention none of that poop in his pathetic, cringeworthy propaganda interview on Sky. No he didn't. What he actually said was and mostly with a wry smile on his face was. "The mere fact that the club has been, or will be taken over and the debts wiped off, immediately puts us into a very, very different financial position to the one we've been in becasue... I suppose and I haven't confirmed this, but I just guess that the sort of money we've had to pay the bank in interest will now possibly be made available for players and if that money alone was made available, we'd be quite wealthy". Slightly different to the slant you put on it. If you're going to represent what someone says, at least be accurate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9097381.stm Or by making the club stable, building a new stadium or redeveloping Anfield so that the money the club makes is the clubs money and not the banks as what has happened previously. I don't think they (NESV) need too much advice from the layman on how to run a club, there past adventures seem to suggest they know what they are doing. I'm willing to accept you've have accurately quoted Hodgson (although I was fairly sure that in the interview I heard he quoted 40 million and I'm surprised that the number has just appeared in my head). I still believe that means he is labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding about Liverpool's financial position, one that seems to be shared by many Liverpool supporters ie that money previously paid out in interest is now available to spend on players. The fact that the debt has been removed from Liverpool's books is undeniably good news for the club. It removes the possibility that a default could result in the club being placed into Administration. But in itself it doesnt mean that there is additional money availabe to the new owners to spend on players. The owners still have to finance the funds that they used to make the acquisition. Those financing costs have been moved a couple of rungs up the ownership ladder but they still exist and they still impact on NESV's ability to fund player acqusitions. It may well be that NESV will make funds available to buy players. They've clearly bought the club for a good price and could probably justify increasing their investment by an additional £50-100m or so. But that's not the same as having an additional £30m+ available to invest every year because the debts have been "wiped off". I agree that the owners shouldn't make stupid promises, but I also think they shouldn't allow fundamental misconceptions to persist, at the very least a far as the manager is concerned. |
|
keithcun wrote: Now they don't, that's the last thing they should be doing. There's only the people within the club that need to know how much money is available for transfers. No stupid promises like the last two, they need to start with stability, look at the stadium, talk to the fans and look where they can go from here. Don't forget, H&G hadn't been here 10 minutes before they were trying to line Klinsmann up, which was the follow up to many, many lies, they didn't mention none of that poop in his pathetic, cringeworthy propaganda interview on Sky. No he didn't. What he actually said was and mostly with a wry smile on his face was. "The mere fact that the club has been, or will be taken over and the debts wiped off, immediately puts us into a very, very different financial position to the one we've been in becasue... I suppose and I haven't confirmed this, but I just guess that the sort of money we've had to pay the bank in interest will now possibly be made available for players and if that money alone was made available, we'd be quite wealthy". Slightly different to the slant you put on it. If you're going to represent what someone says, at least be accurate. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/9097381.stm Or by making the club stable, building a new stadium or redeveloping Anfield so that the money the club makes is the clubs money and not the banks as what has happened previously. I don't think they (NESV) need too much advice from the layman on how to run a club, there past adventures seem to suggest they know what they are doing. I'm willing to accept you've have accurately quoted Hodgson (although I was fairly sure that in the interview I heard he quoted 40 million and I'm surprised that the number has just appeared in my head). I still believe that means he is labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding about Liverpool's financial position, one that seems to be shared by many Liverpool supporters ie that money previously paid out in interest is now available to spend on players. The fact that the debt has been removed from Liverpool's books is undeniably good news for the club. It removes the possibility that a default could result in the club being placed into Administration. But in itself it doesnt mean that there is additional money availabe to the new owners to spend on players. The owners still have to finance the funds that they used to make the acquisition. Those financing costs have been moved a couple of rungs up the ownership ladder but they still exist and they still impact on NESV's ability to fund player acqusitions. It may well be that NESV will make funds available to buy players. They've clearly bought the club for a good price and could probably justify increasing their investment by an additional £50-100m or so. But that's not the same as having an additional £30m+ available to invest every year because the debts have been "wiped off". I agree that the owners shouldn't make stupid promises, but I also think they shouldn't allow fundamental misconceptions to persist, at the very least a far as the manager is concerned. |
|
|
