Trending Topics

      Next match: LFC v Brighton [Premier League] Sun 31st Mar @ 2:00 pm
      Anfield

      Today is the 29th of March and on this date LFC's match record is P24 W11 D6 L7

      LFC Reds Poll

      Q. Should we go out and buy in January?

      Yes, we need at least 2 or more signings
      (38.9%)
      Yes, 1 signing
      (46.6%)
      No, we're fine as we are
      (9.2%)
      Other (please state what and why?
      (5.3%)

      The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?

      Read 49399 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      Beerbelly
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 6,983 posts | 2054 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #391: Jan 23, 2017 03:29:33 pm
      Well none of them made a difference whether they're the same "type" of player or not mate. 

      As for spuds and chavs, they beat the bus parkers because they have the best defenses or had you forgotten we scored twice yesterday and have scored several goals this season against other bus parker teams? 

      We lost because we couldn't defend, not because we couldn't score.


      Another poster who pretends the game started in the 46th minute. What is this denial about?

      Your crony, in his contorted way of squirming showed us some stats to try and bend things a little (as usual), those stats showed that again, we had the lion's share of possession and had more shots than Swansea in the first half, even if none of them were on target. When you have that kind of dominance you have to put product on the end of it!

      There were 45 minutes played before Swansea scored, we couldn't muster a shot on target, never mind a goal. When you play bus parkers you need to score as quickly as you can to:
       
      a) relieve tension and anxiety amongst the players, and fans to a lesser extent, and
      b) because we'll more than likely make the 'sitting' side come out and play a bit more which will allow us to play our system to it's optimal.

      Problem is though, we're playing against a side who were bottom of the league and had conceded more goals than any other team in the league, yet failed to muster one single effort on target in 45 minutes of play.

      So, we get to half-time goalless, and you can bet your bottom dollar Klopp's talk is going to be about breaching their defense. The team go out in the second half with this in mind, they switch off at the back and concede, and again. That was lousy, and it was poor defending.

      The thing is though, we know we concede, this is nothing new, we conceded 3 on the opening day of the season to Arsenal and still won. We knew pretty much from then how things were going to shape up, that attack was going to be our best form of defense.  When we blew Leicester away at home, and as sh*te as they were we still gave them a goal to take back on their travels. Same with Hull. Same down at Palace when we beat them 4-2, against West Brom 2-1. 'You score, but we'll score more than you' - similar actually some of these games have been to Rodgers' type of 'cavalier' football in many respects. 6-1 Watford; Stoke 4-1; and Bournemouth of course 4-3.

      We always knew we were soft at the back, even if we actually had improved somewhat in that department. We were/are still prone to conceding goals - we all knew it, our defense in this respect has hardly been kept a State secret. But attack, was our best form of defense and we carried on blowing our opponents away - and so the defense were never really under the microscopic lens, because hey, we were getting 3pts and that's all that mattered. We could take conceding goals, just as long as we knew we would still win. Nobody gave a F**k about the defense then because the results glossed over them.

      We just knew, we could blow teams out the way (when we were in form - and goal scoring form at that). Now though, pretty much since the turn of the year our goals aren't as frequent. And our best form of defense, our attack is highlighting what we already knew - that our defense was vulnerable. This is what happened on Saturday against Swansea, and our own failure to be as ruthless as we were earlier on in the season has come back to bite us on the arse.

      Nothing's changed, except we can't outscore our opponents.

      The attacking veil has been dropped and the defense have been caught with their knickers round their ankles.



       


      fields of anny rd
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 17,663 posts | 1961 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #392: Jan 23, 2017 05:09:18 pm
      If you look at most teams they have pace in the forward areas in the starting XI and on the bench and even in reserve. So when 1 player is injured or absent another just slots straight in and you can barely tell the difference.

      Arsenal have Walcott, Iwobi, Ox and you can bet theres loads in the youth team.

      Chelsea have Hazard, Willian, Pedro, Moses and in the youth team they have the double barreled lad.

      United have Martial, Rashford, Lingard, Mkhataryan.

      City have Navas, Sterling, Sane, Jesus.

      It's not a question for these clubs of already having pace in the starting XI and being content with that. They load their team with it. Even Spurs have Son, Lamella and Sissoko.

      We lose Mane and our threat is diminished and we look like a Rodgers team again. Still looking to score, but looking half the threat and our defensive frailties are exposed.

      Perhaps it could be argued that we over compensated to get those 2 goals, or Swansea released more players on the counter because they weren't as worried about our counter attack as much as they should have been.

      One thing is for sure, Klopp has had a while now to get together a proper squad with quality and depth in every position.

      From the sounds of it Klopp knows where we are lacking but we are struggling to get teams to sell to us. Perhaps these teams don't want to be in a position we find ourselves in where they will end up with a lack of depth by selling to us.

      Question is how/why on earth did we leave ourselves with 1 capable fast player in the squad? Why don't we have a capable proper left back? Why do we just have 1 right back and a kid? Where's the variety in midfield?

      Basically why for the what feels like every year of my lifetime do we have no real competition for places? No answer off the bench?

      We need quality in every position at least twice.

      A Klopp team should be littered with pace. Win the ball high and break and fet into their defense as directly as possible.

      What I'm seeing at the moment isn't a Klopp team. It's more Enya than heavy metal as we sail sail sail away from silverware.
      « Last Edit: Jan 23, 2017 05:22:38 pm by fields of anny rd »
      fckmediocrity
      • Forum Billy Liddell
      • ****

      • 604 posts | 213 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #393: Jan 23, 2017 05:47:05 pm
      If you look at most teams they have pace in the forward areas in the starting XI and on the bench and even in reserve. So when 1 player is injured or absent another just slots straight in and you can barely tell the difference.

      Arsenal have Walcott, Iwobi, Ox and you can bet theres loads in the youth team.

      Chelsea have Hazard, Willian, Pedro, Moses and in the youth team they have the double barreled lad.

      United have Martial, Rashford, Lingard, Mkhataryan.

      City have Navas, Sterling, Sane, Jesus.

      It's not a question for these clubs of already having pace in the starting XI and being content with that. They load their team with it. Even Spurs have Son, Lamella and Sissoko.

      We lose Mane and our threat is diminished and we look like a Rodgers team again. Still looking to score, but looking half the threat and our defensive frailties are exposed.

      Perhaps it could be argued that we over compensated to get those 2 goals, or Swansea released more players on the counter because they weren't as worried about our counter attack as much as they should have been.

      One thing is for sure, Klopp has had a while now to get together a proper squad with quality and depth in every position.

      From the sounds of it Klopp knows where we are lacking but we are struggling to get teams to sell to us. Perhaps these teams don't want to be in a position we find ourselves in where they will end up with a lack of depth by selling to us.

      Question is how/why on earth did we leave ourselves with 1 capable fast player in the squad? Why don't we have a capable proper left back? Why do we just have 1 right back and a kid? Where's the variety in midfield?

      Basically why for the what feels like every year of my lifetime do we have no real competition for places? No answer off the bench?

      We need quality in every position at least twice.

      A Klopp team should be littered with pace. Win the ball high and break and fet into their defense as directly as possible.

      What I'm seeing at the moment isn't a Klopp team. It's more Enya than heavy metal as we sail sail sail away from silverware.

      Can`t have depth..that will add to the wage bill; they haven`t spent the last years trimming the squad for nothing.
      Swab
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,361 posts | 3462 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #394: Jan 23, 2017 06:40:25 pm
      Can`t have depth..that will add to the wage bill; they haven`t spent the last years trimming the squad for nothing.

      Our wage bill is at one of the highest points it's ever been.

      You can see it clearly in the accounts which are published online.
      You can also see they haven't been taking money out of the club, or even paying themselves a dividend.
      Kopite78
      • Guest
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #395: Jan 23, 2017 07:26:09 pm
      Our wage bill is at one of the highest points it's ever been.



      As a £ figure yes but as a % no

      Wages are going up so that would inevitably mean that the overall wage bill in £ would be at its highest but as a % they have been steadily decreasing it in their time

      Our highest % was actually 1999/00 when it was around the 90% mark

      But in recent times 10/11 was a peak of around 70% they reduced that to 64% in 12/13 and now around 56%

      In that time 10/11 turnover was around £185m and now it's around £300m
      AZPatriot
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 9,944 posts | 1759 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #396: Jan 23, 2017 08:43:58 pm
      If January isn't the time to buy, maybe we should have bought more players in the summer.  :f_whistle:

      Yup, and I think even the manager thinks that also...couple of more quality bodies (ie..Mane 2.0) and we would not be having the same issues..however seeing how Summer has passed...well there ya go spilled milk and all.

      I think he cut it close as he wanted a core squad to work with and with no Europe figued we'd get away with it.

      Again probably 1-2 quality players (not necessarily world-class) might of made a difference.
      KS67
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 4,475 posts | 463 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #397: Jan 23, 2017 08:50:04 pm
      Except Klopp stated, very clearly that we had not only matched valuations, but had also added a "premium" payment, and the clubs still wouldn't sell.

      Kind of bad when the facts get in the way of rants, but there you go.

      Pay more.
      reddebs
      • "LFC Hipster"
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 17,980 posts | 2264 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #398: Jan 23, 2017 08:53:09 pm
      There's a stat doing the rounds today about number of players used so far this season.

      Chelsea - 20
      Liverpool - 23

      Strange how many have been championing get in anyone rather than waiting and improving the starting 11, when for years the complaints have been we don't need more squaddies.

      We offloaded 23 players last summer because we'd been buying for the sake of it for too long and never improving, we were lucky to get rid of so many and bring in so much for them.

      We don't need a bigger squad, we need a better squad!!
      LondonRed83
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 21,300 posts | 3869 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #399: Jan 23, 2017 11:03:18 pm
      There's a stat doing the rounds today about number of players used so far this season.

      Chelsea - 20
      Liverpool - 23

      Strange how many have been championing get in anyone rather than waiting and improving the starting 11, when for years the complaints have been we don't need more squaddies.

      We offloaded 23 players last summer because we'd been buying for the sake of it for too long and never improving, we were lucky to get rid of so many and bring in so much for them.

      We don't need a bigger squad, we need a better squad!!

      Well let's start bringing in better players
      Diego LFC
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 19,326 posts | 2823 
      • Sempre Liverpool
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #400: Jan 23, 2017 11:28:03 pm
      There's a stat doing the rounds today about number of players used so far this season.

      Chelsea - 20
      Liverpool - 23

      Strange how many have been championing get in anyone rather than waiting and improving the starting 11, when for years the complaints have been we don't need more squaddies.

      We offloaded 23 players last summer because we'd been buying for the sake of it for too long and never improving, we were lucky to get rid of so many and bring in so much for them.

      We don't need a bigger squad, we need a better squad!!

      I'd say we need a bigger squad of EPL capable players. I don't think a Kevin Stewart is ever going to make it at this level, for example. Ejaria, Woodburn and others might be extremely promising for the future (you're surely in a better position to say so than myself), but right now their impact is very limited.

      Chelsea on the other hand often goes to games with Fabregas, Begovic, Willian and Ivanovic on the bench. We've had a few games where Woodburn was our main attacking option on the bench, with Alberto Moreno coming on as a winger.

      So I fully agree it's not simply about squad size, but I don't think the fact we've apparently used more players than Chelsea means squad depth isn't an issue.
      bad boy bubby
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 14,564 posts | 3172 
      • @KaiserQueef
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #401: Jan 24, 2017 09:10:26 am
      Strange how many have been championing get in anyone...

      These "many" looking "anyone"; who are they debs?   :-\

      bad boy bubby
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 14,564 posts | 3172 
      • @KaiserQueef
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #402: Jan 24, 2017 09:43:57 am
      So I fully agree it's not simply about squad size, but I don't think the fact we've apparently used more players than Chelsea means squad depth isn't an issue.
      Spot on mate... as ever it's all about the quality. Although that fact seemed to have been forgotten (or set aside, if you prefer) when, during the summer, we were debating that very thing.

      Back then you had one or two erstwhile supporters, of the 'buy quality' theory, suddenly change tack.

      Lack of quality (in depth) suddenly became unimportant because a) 'we aren't in Europe' b) 'if Leicester City can do it so can we' and c) 'we don't buy big names, we make them'.

      You know what tho? Truth is: it's the quality of players which, more often than not, makes all the difference.

      Unless (for example) we are happy to concede two things - 1: that Conte is a much better coach than Jürgen and or 2: Brendan Rodgers was way better than he was given credit for ... think about it.  ;)

      To be honest; I have found it funny as F**k watching people who argued against me (and others), when we wanted quality, now argue that we shouldn't sign anyone who's not of the right calibre. You couldn't make it up... thankfully I don't have to.  :laugh:

      reddebs
      • "LFC Hipster"
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 17,980 posts | 2264 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #403: Jan 24, 2017 10:09:13 am
      I'd say we need a bigger squad of EPL capable players. I don't think a Kevin Stewart is ever going to make it at this level, for example. Ejaria, Woodburn and others might be extremely promising for the future (you're surely in a better position to say so than myself), but right now their impact is very limited.

      Chelsea on the other hand often goes to games with Fabregas, Begovic, Willian and Ivanovic on the bench. We've had a few games where Woodburn was our main attacking option on the bench, with Alberto Moreno coming on as a winger.

      So I fully agree it's not simply about squad size, but I don't think the fact we've apparently used more players than Chelsea means squad depth isn't an issue.

      And once again the point is missed.

      It wasn't that we'd used more players so therefore we don't need more players but that with better players squad size doesn't matter so much.

      The "improve the starting 11" rather than bringing in more squaddies was my point.

      what-a-hit-son
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • Started Topic
      • 16,466 posts | 4816 
      • t: @MrPrice1979 i: @klmprice101518
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #404: Jan 24, 2017 10:12:52 am
      What I'm seeing at the moment isn't a Klopp team. It's more Enya than heavy metal as we sail sail sail away from silverware.

      I can't believe you went through with that :D
      The Real Donavan Ried
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 5,120 posts | 949 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #405: Jan 24, 2017 10:22:14 am

      Debs however makes a fair point regarding the defence. It really has been pish poor at times which, (considering the fact that Jürgen signed two centre backs and a 'keeper and he moved Milner back), is strange.


      What real done for us was the lack of pace and zip in our game, which we showed only after going two nil down and reverted back to the slow/controlled patient after we scored the second, allowing Swansea back into the game... The Introduction of Sturridge took something away from our attack, as did the introduction of Origi...Defensive wise Yes Klavan had a off day, what defender does not, but as stated we produced little in the way of a Goal threat in the first 45 mins and very little until they scored the second
      Kopite78
      • Guest
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #406: Jan 24, 2017 01:45:29 pm
      As a £ figure yes but as a % no

      Wages are going up so that would inevitably mean that the overall wage bill in £ would be at its highest but as a % they have been steadily decreasing it in their time

      Our highest % was actually 1999/00 when it was around the 90% mark

      But in recent times 10/11 was a peak of around 70% they reduced that to 64% in 12/13 and now around 56%

      In that time 10/11 turnover was around £185m and now it's around £300m

      Just a little more context on this, for my own interest if nobody elses  :)

      Looking at the period between 2011/12 and 2014/15

      I wont list every clubs turnover and % as it will become very long winded but ill give a league average and some highlights
      I'm trying to think of a fair way to put across the figures so I think our % against a league average is a fair starting point and then I think its fair to judge it against what we want to do, where we are in this period and what fair examples can be raised against the rest.

      2011/12
      The average % to turnover figure was 72% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 70% in this season, so not far behind the average but behind it nonetheless

      2012/13
      The average % to turnover figure was 75% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 64%, dropping off the average

      2013/14
      The average % to turnover figure was 60% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 56%, again dropping off of our average and still down on the league average

      2014/15
      The average % to turnover figure was 63% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was again 56%, staying steady as a % but slipping further behind the league average

      For point of interest the new tv deal at that point kicked in during 13/14 which because of that injection of turnover slashed the average % from 75% to 60% as a league, the players then must get a little piece of that pie as the league average rises again the season after.

      Our Turnover over those 4 seasons
      11/12 - 169M
      12/13 - 206M
      13/14 - 256M
      14/15 - 298M

      So whilst the turnover has spiked the average % to that turnover has dropped by -14%

      Interesting in that period too that Man Utds turnover has increased from 320M to 395M, now that smashes ours still and the money they make is frightening when you look at the figures but during that period of four season their Turnover has increased less than ours, theirs by 75M over that four year period, ours by 129M in the same period, however their % of wages to turnover has stayed the same as a % whilst ours has decreased

      I think its interesting to compare where we are to what we want to do and a club or two who have done similar.

      You could say that when City were taken over they were similar to where we are now, we have averaged around 6th-8th over the last 6 or 7 seasons bar one year when we went close, City came from roughly that area to win two titles and now be CL regulars

      Look at them

      2011/12 Their % to turnover was 87% (Their wage bill was also £ wise £83m more in the year)
      2012/13 Their % to turnover was 86% (Wage bill £101M higher)
      2013/14 Their % to turnover was 59% (Wage bill was £61M higher)
      2014/15 Their % to turnover was 55% (wage bill 28m higher)

      So what does that suggest? That in their initial push they really over paid in wages to get there, they to get players to get them established were both in bulk and high wages, they really pushed the boat out to get their, in £ and %, now they are established the numbers in terms of players has reduced and the % has come back towards the average for the big clubs with the higher turnovers, but they gambled and pushed the limits to get there. They pushed the limits initially and then their turnover increased as they became successful
      Now I know they have done it with the middle eastern backing but % to turnover? Could we do more I guess is what im asking, could we push the boat on wages to get in there, f**k win a couple of league title and establish ourselves in the CL again. We are still the 9th richest club in world football, if we were not finishing 6th-8th regularly then our earning potential eclipses City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs.. Utd are massive and you have to respect that even if it sticks in the throat, yes they have a bigger stadium but everything else? If we were successful again we'd be up there with them.
      Think back a bit again, over this four year period our turnover has grown more than theirs, but our % to that turnover has shrunk.. We have cut the wage bill on older high earners but never replaced them, City grew with ambition and paid established stars to get them there, inflating their wage bill, we are trying to do it with potential and reducing the wage bill..

      We are living within our means, yes..(maybe too safely) But are others more ambitious in living within theirs?


      « Last Edit: Jan 24, 2017 02:01:14 pm by Kopite78 »
      reddebs
      • "LFC Hipster"
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 17,980 posts | 2264 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #407: Jan 24, 2017 02:29:22 pm
      Just a little more context on this, for my own interest if nobody elses  :)

      Looking at the period between 2011/12 and 2014/15

      I wont list every clubs turnover and % as it will become very long winded but ill give a league average and some highlights
      I'm trying to think of a fair way to put across the figures so I think our % against a league average is a fair starting point and then I think its fair to judge it against what we want to do, where we are in this period and what fair examples can be raised against the rest.

      2011/12
      The average % to turnover figure was 72% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 70% in this season, so not far behind the average but behind it nonetheless

      2012/13
      The average % to turnover figure was 75% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 64%, dropping off the average

      2013/14
      The average % to turnover figure was 60% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 56%, again dropping off of our average and still down on the league average

      2014/15
      The average % to turnover figure was 63% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was again 56%, staying steady as a % but slipping further behind the league average

      For point of interest the new tv deal at that point kicked in during 13/14 which because of that injection of turnover slashed the average % from 75% to 60% as a league, the players then must get a little piece of that pie as the league average rises again the season after.

      Our Turnover over those 4 seasons
      11/12 - 169M
      12/13 - 206M
      13/14 - 256M
      14/15 - 298M

      So whilst the turnover has spiked the average % to that turnover has dropped by -14%

      Interesting in that period too that Man Utds turnover has increased from 320M to 395M, now that smashes ours still and the money they make is frightening when you look at the figures but during that period of four season their Turnover has increased less than ours, theirs by 75M over that four year period, ours by 129M in the same period, however their % of wages to turnover has stayed the same as a % whilst ours has decreased

      I think its interesting to compare where we are to what we want to do and a club or two who have done similar.

      You could say that when City were taken over they were similar to where we are now, we have averaged around 6th-8th over the last 6 or 7 seasons bar one year when we went close, City came from roughly that area to win two titles and now be CL regulars

      Look at them

      2011/12 Their % to turnover was 87% (Their wage bill was also £ wise £83m more in the year)
      2012/13 Their % to turnover was 86% (Wage bill £101M higher)
      2013/14 Their % to turnover was 59% (Wage bill was £61M higher)
      2014/15 Their % to turnover was 55% (wage bill 28m higher)

      So what does that suggest? That in their initial push they really over paid in wages to get there, they to get players to get them established were both in bulk and high wages, they really pushed the boat out to get their, in £ and %, now they are established the numbers in terms of players has reduced and the % has come back towards the average for the big clubs with the higher turnovers, but they gambled and pushed the limits to get there. They pushed the limits initially and then their turnover increased as they became successful
      Now I know they have done it with the middle eastern backing but % to turnover? Could we do more I guess is what im asking, could we push the boat on wages to get in there, f**k win a couple of league title and establish ourselves in the CL again. We are still the 9th richest club in world football, if we were not finishing 6th-8th regularly then our earning potential eclipses City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs.. Utd are massive and you have to respect that even if it sticks in the throat, yes they have a bigger stadium but everything else? If we were successful again we'd be up there with them.
      Think back a bit again, over this four year period our turnover has grown more than theirs, but our % to that turnover has shrunk.. We have cut the wage bill on older high earners but never replaced them, City grew with ambition and paid established stars to get them there, inflating their wage bill, we are trying to do it with potential and reducing the wage bill..

      We are living within our means, yes..(maybe too safely) But are others more ambitious in living within theirs?

      They are interesting stats mate, I was reading similar on another forum couple of weeks ago. 

      The reduction in % was mainly down to FFP rules where they were aiming for around 55% for all clubs.  This I believe brings the wage structure of football clubs, and their ability to survive a downturn, (relegation or drop out of CL) in line with other industries.

      Utd have always had a low % in comparison to other clubs due to their massive turnover and the club average figures you've posted are slightly skewed due to QPRs outrageous 90% from 2011/12 to 2014/15 whilst they were in the PL.

      We have also lost some really big earners in that time too.  Stevie, Carra, Agger, Pepe, Luis, Kuyt, Pepe, Cole and Aquilani were all on huge wages - above £85k per week, some over £100k.

      I guess once we start winning stuff on a regular basis again it won't matter if we don't spend huge amounts on fees and wages, as it's all about the silverware.
      KopiteLuke
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 21,056 posts | 3784 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #408: Jan 24, 2017 02:35:41 pm
      Just a little more context on this, for my own interest if nobody elses  :)

      Looking at the period between 2011/12 and 2014/15

      I wont list every clubs turnover and % as it will become very long winded but ill give a league average and some highlights
      I'm trying to think of a fair way to put across the figures so I think our % against a league average is a fair starting point and then I think its fair to judge it against what we want to do, where we are in this period and what fair examples can be raised against the rest.

      2011/12
      The average % to turnover figure was 72% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 70% in this season, so not far behind the average but behind it nonetheless

      2012/13
      The average % to turnover figure was 75% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 64%, dropping off the average

      2013/14
      The average % to turnover figure was 60% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was 56%, again dropping off of our average and still down on the league average

      2014/15
      The average % to turnover figure was 63% across the 20 league clubs
      Our % was again 56%, staying steady as a % but slipping further behind the league average

      For point of interest the new tv deal at that point kicked in during 13/14 which because of that injection of turnover slashed the average % from 75% to 60% as a league, the players then must get a little piece of that pie as the league average rises again the season after.

      Our Turnover over those 4 seasons
      11/12 - 169M
      12/13 - 206M
      13/14 - 256M
      14/15 - 298M

      So whilst the turnover has spiked the average % to that turnover has dropped by -14%

      Interesting in that period too that Man Utds turnover has increased from 320M to 395M, now that smashes ours still and the money they make is frightening when you look at the figures but during that period of four season their Turnover has increased less than ours, theirs by 75M over that four year period, ours by 129M in the same period, however their % of wages to turnover has stayed the same as a % whilst ours has decreased

      I think its interesting to compare where we are to what we want to do and a club or two who have done similar.

      You could say that when City were taken over they were similar to where we are now, we have averaged around 6th-8th over the last 6 or 7 seasons bar one year when we went close, City came from roughly that area to win two titles and now be CL regulars

      Look at them

      2011/12 Their % to turnover was 87% (Their wage bill was also £ wise £83m more in the year)
      2012/13 Their % to turnover was 86% (Wage bill £101M higher)
      2013/14 Their % to turnover was 59% (Wage bill was £61M higher)
      2014/15 Their % to turnover was 55% (wage bill 28m higher)

      So what does that suggest? That in their initial push they really over paid in wages to get there, they to get players to get them established were both in bulk and high wages, they really pushed the boat out to get their, in £ and %, now they are established the numbers in terms of players has reduced and the % has come back towards the average for the big clubs with the higher turnovers, but they gambled and pushed the limits to get there. They pushed the limits initially and then their turnover increased as they became successful
      Now I know they have done it with the middle eastern backing but % to turnover? Could we do more I guess is what im asking, could we push the boat on wages to get in there, f**k win a couple of league title and establish ourselves in the CL again. We are still the 9th richest club in world football, if we were not finishing 6th-8th regularly then our earning potential eclipses City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs.. Utd are massive and you have to respect that even if it sticks in the throat, yes they have a bigger stadium but everything else? If we were successful again we'd be up there with them.
      Think back a bit again, over this four year period our turnover has grown more than theirs, but our % to that turnover has shrunk.. We have cut the wage bill on older high earners but never replaced them, City grew with ambition and paid established stars to get them their, inflating their wage bill, we are trying to do it with potential and reducing the wage bill..

      We are living within our means, yes.. But are others more ambitious in living within theirs?




      Interesting figures, first thing I'd say though is I think City is an extremely poor example due to their ownership and their strange accounting/sponsorship practises. I'd think judging us against United/Arsenal/Spurs would provide a little more clarity (Chelsea are again owned by a man more interested in a hobby and a way to launder... I mean invest his money).

      It's fair to say that our turnover has increased quite rapidly and as such I'd think the drip down effect may take a little longer. You're basically judging us against a lot of teams that have remained quite static in relative terms. We were neglected under the previous ownership and one thing FSG seem exceptional at is increasing revenue and fair play to them for that.

      So let's take your figures and convert some to £ to see how the wage bill is being managed:

      11/12 - £118.3m wage bill
      12/13 - £132.8m wage bill
      13/14 - £143.4m wage bill
      14/15 - £166.9m wage bill

      An increase year on year in real terms and compared to United http://www.sportsnewsupdated.com/sports-money/manchester-united-player-salaries/ in 2015/16 they had a wage bill of £203m and City one of £193.8m respectively.

      So if we assume that our wages will keep increasing at the average of the above trend (£12.87m) that would mean this year our wages would be approximately £179.7m. Without the extra demands of a CL campaign that, to me doesn't put us too far away from our richer competitors. So while our wage bill, as a % terms may be coming down when judged against turnover, that to me just shows a business being run quite prudently and in many ways that would be commended, of course from our perspective as fans we want them to break the bank and pay what it takes to get the best but some of those mistakes of the past (big contracts for bench warmers) have already been vowed wont be done again.

      With CL footy then we'll see our wage bill take another jump as we need a larger squad size and no doubt with the carrot of playing in that competition we'll probably attract a few more high earners too. In conclusion, looking at the numbers, I'm content enough.
      Kopite78
      • Guest
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #409: Jan 24, 2017 02:41:07 pm
      They are interesting stats mate, I was reading similar on another forum couple of weeks ago. 

      The reduction in % was mainly down to FFP rules where they were aiming for around 55% for all clubs.  This I believe brings the wage structure of football clubs, and their ability to survive a downturn, (relegation or drop out of CL) in line with other industries.

      Utd have always had a low % in comparison to other clubs due to their massive turnover and the club average figures you've posted are slightly skewed due to QPRs outrageous 90% from 2011/12 to 2014/15 whilst they were in the PL.

      We have also lost some really big earners in that time too.  Stevie, Carra, Agger, Pepe, Luis, Kuyt, Pepe, Cole and Aquilani were all on huge wages - above £85k per week, some over £100k.

      I guess once we start winning stuff on a regular basis again it won't matter if we don't spend huge amounts on fees and wages, as it's all about the silverware.

      I pulled the information from David Conn's stuff he has done on the guardian in the last few years

      QPR were a basket case when you look at their figures, actually in 12/13 they were running at 128% to turnover, 91% in 11/12 and 85% in 14/15
      But there's clubs the other way that balance it the opposite direction too.
      Norwich 49% in 11/12
      Swansea 54% in 11/12
      Hull 51% in 13/14
      Palace 51% in 13/14
      Burnley 37% in 14/15
      Just as some examples, it balances the other way for the basket case clubs

      I just wonder at times if we could push it a little more in terms of wages we can offer the top players to try to bridge that gap
      Kopite78
      • Guest
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #410: Jan 24, 2017 02:46:36 pm
      Interesting figures, first thing I'd say though is I think City is an extremely poor example due to their ownership and their strange accounting/sponsorship practises. I'd think judging us against United/Arsenal/Spurs would provide a little more clarity (Chelsea are again owned by a man more interested in a hobby and a way to launder... I mean invest his money).

      It's fair to say that our turnover has increased quite rapidly and as such I'd think the drip down effect may take a little longer. You're basically judging us against a lot of teams that have remained quite static in relative terms. We were neglected under the previous ownership and one thing FSG seem exceptional at is increasing revenue and fair play to them for that.

      So let's take your figures and convert some to £ to see how the wage bill is being managed:

      11/12 - £118.3m wage bill
      12/13 - £132.8m wage bill
      13/14 - £143.4m wage bill
      14/15 - £166.9m wage bill

      An increase year on year in real terms and compared to United http://www.sportsnewsupdated.com/sports-money/manchester-united-player-salaries/ in 2015/16 they had a wage bill of £203m and City one of £193.8m respectively.

      So if we assume that our wages will keep increasing at the average of the above trend (£12.87m) that would mean this year our wages would be approximately £179.7m. Without the extra demands of a CL campaign that, to me doesn't put us too far away from our richer competitors. So while our wage bill, as a % terms may be coming down when judged against turnover, that to me just shows a business being run quite prudently and in many ways that would be commended, of course from our perspective as fans we want them to break the bank and pay what it takes to get the best but some of those mistakes of the past (big contracts for bench warmers) have already been vowed wont be done again.

      With CL footy then we'll see our wage bill take another jump as we need a larger squad size and no doubt with the carrot of playing in that competition we'll probably attract a few more high earners too. In conclusion, looking at the numbers, I'm content enough.

      I only used City as a comparison of where they had come from and where we need to come from, I did caveat it by saying they are middle eastern backed but they gambled

      I'm not saying I'm overly critical of the numbers, just I think we would all suggest that add a couple of real bangers into this squad/team and we could be right in there again, and that's what we all want, all I was saying with the figures is there would seem to be the room within our means to do that? Would it not be worth pushing a bit with what it could bring with it? Not just for us fans, but for the club commercially, we would be worth far more commercially with sustained success

      I'm not asking them to break the bank, just that there is room there to do it without breaking the bank

      Is there not a point in whilst the turnover has gone up the % of wages against it has come down?

      In 2000 we were at 90% (too high) but is it a coincidence that the season after we win a treble?
      « Last Edit: Jan 24, 2017 03:01:26 pm by Kopite78 »
      KopiteLuke
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 21,056 posts | 3784 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #411: Jan 24, 2017 02:57:51 pm
      I only used City as a comparison of where they had come from and where we need to come from, I did caveat it by saying they are middle eastern backed but they gambled

      Yeah, got that bit mate, I just think it's a little bit of an anomaly that one in terms of their financial figures. I totally get the comparison of where they started to us currently and that's fair enough.

      I'm not saying I'm overly critical of the numbers, just I think we would all suggest that add a couple of real bangers into this squad/team and we could be right in there again, and that's what we all want, all I was saying with the figures is there would seem to be the room within our means to do that? Would it not be worth pushing a bit with what it could bring with it? Not just for us fans, but for the club commercially, we would be worth far more commercially with sustained success

      I'm not asking them to break the bank, just that there is room there to do it without breaking the bank

      100% agree there's room for more mate, I don't think anyone would dispute that and with Jürgen saying they are trying to add players this in this window it's clear the willingness is there. I suspect, and believe that you already suspect too, that it will only be in the summer when find we out just how much we're willing to increase those wages by.

      Kopite78
      • Guest
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #412: Jan 24, 2017 03:07:35 pm
      Yeah, got that bit mate, I just think it's a little bit of an anomaly that one in terms of their financial figures. I totally get the comparison of where they started to us currently and that's fair enough.

      100% agree there's room for more mate, I don't think anyone would dispute that and with Jürgen saying they are trying to add players this in this window it's clear the willingness is there. I suspect, and believe that you already suspect too, that it will only be in the summer when find we out just how much we're willing to increase those wages by.

      I hope so this summer mate, and as frustrated as I am and I'm sure and everyone else is that the title looks to be slipping away this year I'm not that concerned it will get any harder next season,  Chelsea have won what? 15 games this season? What they gonna win next season? 16 or 17 by this point, this league is difficult, it won't be much more or less difficult next season, we've just got to get better and I just think we could be slightly more ambitious without breaking the bank
      reddebs
      • "LFC Hipster"
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 17,980 posts | 2264 
      Re: The January Transfer Window - Stick or Twist?
      Reply #413: Jan 24, 2017 04:42:44 pm
      I pulled the information from David Conn's stuff he has done on the guardian in the last few years

      QPR were a basket case when you look at their figures, actually in 12/13 they were running at 128% to turnover, 91% in 11/12 and 85% in 14/15
      But there's clubs the other way that balance it the opposite direction too.
      Norwich 49% in 11/12
      Swansea 54% in 11/12
      Hull 51% in 13/14
      Palace 51% in 13/14
      Burnley 37% in 14/15
      Just as some examples, it balances the other way for the basket case clubs

      I just wonder at times if we could push it a little more in terms of wages we can offer the top players to try to bridge that gap


      I'm sure we can and will mate.  We'll never pay what the other clubs do, certainly not when they first arrive and there's absolutely no way would I want us to go totally overboard with fees and wages just to prove we can, like utd did with Pogba.  Ffs they had no competition for him, it was all a big dick swinging excercise and a "wow!! look at us, we can spend anything we want".

      Quick Reply