NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

The wages shouldn't be debatable as we publish our accounts so there for all to see so I don't understand that argument that is going on here.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1387289812282101760?s=19

£325M according to this with City slightly higher at around £351M

The wages shouldn't be debatable as we publish our accounts so there for all to see so I don't understand that argument that is going on here.

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1387289812282101760?s=19

£325M according to this with City slightly higher at around £351M

Simple.

2 posters have posted we had the 2nd highest salary after City.

Ive asked for clarification if these are solely player salaries & after going in roundabouts it’s clear it’s not solely player salaries.

I just don’t like the bullshit the our players are the 2nd highest paid players in the PL when it’s obvious they are not.

I know they owned the club mate, I just question the relevance of this example to your argument, which is, as far as I understand, that FSG misses out on players when we go head to head with "other" elite clubs.

Fair enough. But the fact for me is that we were not an elite club then, so we would hardly be able to compete with one. We had finished 7th and were managed by a dinosaur, then supposedly missed out on Hazard for the then Premier League champions.

So your statement re Hazard might true - I'm not sure, but I am not even disputing that - but I don't think it is relevant to the argument. Once on a par with elite clubs, then other examples might be more relevant.

Maybe I have ptsd from the trauma of previous years. I actually mean it

I know that one of my issues is adapting my mentality to being one of the top dogs.

I'm 36 and only ever known us as nearly men with a couple of trophies along the way to stop me from suicide 😂

I'll sit back and see what we're like this summer then and judge from there.

Thanks bro 👊🏽

Simple.

2 posters have posted we had the 2nd highest salary after City.

Ive asked for clarification if these are solely player salaries & after going in roundabouts it’s clear it’s not solely player salaries.

I just don’t like the bullshit the our players are the 2nd highest paid players in the PL when it’s obvious they are not.

It's difficult to find that info I agree but wouldn't it be pretty safe to presume that most big Premier League clubs wages for staff other than players would be very similar the therefore the rest is on playing staff??

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1249951450450538496?s=19

It's difficult to find that info I agree but wouldn't it be pretty safe to presume that most big Premier League clubs wages for staff other than players would be very similar the therefore the rest is on playing staff??

Other than directors, shareholders, players & manager the rest of the staff would be lucky picking up £100k PA with the exception of Edwards who I guess would be commanding over a £1 million PA salary..

A large chunk of that £300 odd million is not going on players salaries & bonuses or physios, kit man, etc..

What's John Henry and co's wages?

What's John Henry and co's wages?

Part of the players salaries...😂😎

I just don’t like the bullshit the our players are the 2nd highest paid players in the PL when it’s obvious they are not.

Of course they are. Players wages represent by far the greatest percentage of the total wage bill, I think we all assumed that was patently obvious but clearly it isn't - for you.

Manchester City are a case apart ahead of us.

The club below us even have more non-playing staff, and yet have smaller staff costs. Man United had a total of 992 employees in 2019/20, while LFC had 880 - and yet our total wages were about £42m higher.

The financial statement also tells us how much directors have made, and it was a total of just £2.1m, which again shows how it is the playing staff that accounts for the vast majority of that number.

All experts use those numbers as a proxy for playing staff costs when doing comparisons between clubs, knowing them to be a fair representative.

Other than directors, shareholders, players & manager the rest of the staff would be lucky picking up £100k PA with the exception of Edwards who I guess would be commanding over a £1 million PA salary..

A large chunk of that £300 odd million is not going on players salaries & bonuses or physios, kit man, etc..

Directors were only paid £2.1m, again, that's public information, no need for speculation.

Shareholders are not staff.

Part of the players salaries...😂😎

and Ben Davies is on £60k a week no wonder we're being touted as the second biggest wage spenders this side of Normandy

So the club paid the team/squad over £150 million in bonuses.?

Yes that’s correct - pretty standard

Other than directors, shareholders, players & manager the rest of the staff would be lucky picking up £100k PA with the exception of Edwards who I guess would be commanding over a £1 million PA salary..

A large chunk of that £300 odd million is not going on players salaries & bonuses or physios, kit man, etc..

So if we take our wage bill for 19/20 at £325M and City's at £351M.

If as you say we're paying our players a lot less than them, a point I don't agree with, then we're paying all our other employees far more than City do??

I'd say it's much more that all clubs percentage of total salary to players is pretty much the same as the Swiss Ramble was talking about above.

Simple.

2 posters have posted we had the 2nd highest salary after City.

Ive asked for clarification if these are solely player salaries & after going in roundabouts it’s clear it’s not solely player salaries.

I just don’t like the bullshit the our players are the 2nd highest paid players in the PL when it’s obvious they are not.

The clarification has come directly from the clubs audited accounts mate.

If you choose to ignore that, it's on you.

The clarification has come directly from the clubs audited accounts mate.

If you choose to ignore that, it's on you.

It's this silly nonsense that keeps me coming back here against my better judgement when seemingly intelligent people post nonsense.

I have a lot of time for Shabs but do not understand the point he's trying to get at regarding wages as I think it's pretty much accepted that most of a clubs wages are paid to playing staff.

It's this silly nonsense that keeps me coming back here against my better judgement when seemingly intelligent people post nonsense.

I have a lot of time for Shabs but do not understand the point he's trying to get at regarding wages as I think it's pretty much accepted that most of a clubs wages are paid to playing staff.

I have a lot of time for Shabs as well, but the point he's trying to shoehorn in is that JH and shareholders take a huge lump out under the guise of "wages".

The fact the accounts show this to be untrue is being brushed aside.

Directors were only paid £2.1m, again, that's public information, no need for speculation.

Shareholders are not staff.

Shareholders can be employees, they can have an employment contract and own minimum £2000 shares in the company..

Would be interesting to find out if our shareholders have a employment contract on minimum hours but with a £2000 stake in the ltd company..

There are legal ways around it Diego..

The arrogance to think you know best despite all evidence to the contrary is what I find most amusing.

I am by no means a financial expert but for Shabs to think shareholders are included in that number only goes on to show he's completely clueless - yet thinks he knows something the rest of the world doesn't.

The arrogance to think you know best despite all evidence to the contrary is what I find most amusing.

I am by no means a financial expert but for Shabs to think shareholders are included in that number only goes on to show he's completely clueless - yet thinks he knows something the rest of the world doesn't.

Same thing went on here a few years back, when the fad was to say that the owners were "milking" the club.
In other words, taking their own money out of their own business, which is a strange view to say the least.

Anyway, it ended with some gobs***e declaring some kind of "victory" because the accounts show Directors payments.
The fact that one K.M. Dalglish is a Director was conveniently ignored.

I expect KD gets very well paid for his role within the club, and that's only right.

Shareholders can be employees, they can have an employment contract and own minimum £2000 shares in the company..

Would be interesting to find out if our shareholders have a employment contract on minimum hours but with a £2000 stake in the ltd company..

There are legal ways around it Diego..

Of course they can be, but the ones who are you can find listed here:

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/corporate/directors

And the club's directors have made a combined £2.1m in 2019/20

It is however easier to believe there's a conspiracy theory behind our financial accounts than simply accepting that maybe - MAYBE - you might be wrong. Wish I had that kind of self-confidence

Same thing went on here a few years back, when the fad was to say that the owners were "milking" the club.
In other words, taking their own money out of their own business, which is a strange view to say the least.

Anyway, it ended with some gobs***e declaring some kind of "victory" because the accounts show Directors payments.
The fact that one K.M. Dalglish is a Director was conveniently ignored.

I expect KD gets very well paid for his role within the club, and that's only right.

There's no need to even speculate about directors payments, anyone can clearly see it's a very small percentage of the total:



Most top clubs paid more to their directors, even though they had a smaller total staff cost, such as Man Utd:



Or Chelsea:

There's no need to even speculate about directors payments, anyone can clearly see it's a very small percentage of the total:



Most top clubs paid more to their directors, even though they had a smaller total staff cost, such as Man Utd:



Or Chelsea:

I know, I've made the same point dozens of times, but it gets ignored in the mad scramble by some folk to find some weird kind of "gotcha".

It's all very strange.

I think we can all agree that there are far worse owners out there.

The problem is that people can't seem to see we actually have pretty decent owners, and they are about the best any club could hope for, barring oil oligarchs or royalty.

The only really bad owners we've had were H&G.
Even Moores tried hihs best, in his own way. He just wasn't up to the job of bringing the club into the 21st Century, and it didn't help that Parry ran the business side.

In spite of all the distraction of annual book-keeping, directors bonuses, peculiar payments to Mr Dalglish etc etc, the fact remains - the owners have not put any more into LFC than their initial buy out sum.
Mr Klopp despite his modesty, has saved the club from the mediocrity of mid-table status.

It's like talking to a door