Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Since Kenny rejoined Liverpool he has sold the following
Players Out
Fernando Torres - £50 Million
Raul Meireles - £12 Million
Ryan Babel - £8 Million
David Ngog - £4 Million
Christian Poulsen - £2.5 Million
Emiliano InsUA - £2 Million
Paul Konchesky - £1.5 Million
Chris Mavinga - £1 Million
Milan Jovanovic - £1 Million
Daniel Ayla - £1 Million
Gerardo Bruna £500,000
= £83.5 Million
As well as getting them all of the wage bill, also got all these of the wage bill since last August
Jason Banton (released)
Deale Chamberlain (released)
Douglas Cooper (released)
Sean Highdale (released)
Steven Irwin (released)
Nikola Saric (released)
Gerardo Bruna (nominal to Blackpool)
Tom Ince (undiscl. to Blackpool)
Nabil El Zhar (free to Levante)
Sotirios Kyrgiakos (undiscl. to Wolfsburg)
Dani Pacheco (loan to Atletico Madrid)
Alberto Aquilani (loan to AC Milan)
Emiliano Insua (undiscl. to Sporting Lisbon)
Joe Cole (loan to Lille)
Christian Poulsen (undiscl. to Evian)
Villyan Bijev (loan to Fortuna Dusseldorf)
Philipp Degen (released)
---------------------------------------
Players In
Andy Carroll - £35 Million
Luis Suarez - £22 Million
Stewart Downing - £20 Million
Hendo - £16 Million
Charlie Adam - £7 Million
Sebastian Coates - £7 Million
Jose Enrique - £6 Million
Total In = £113 Million
-----------------------------------
Kenny has reportedly with his dealings of players out and new contracts for players in brought the clubs wage bill down by £30 million a season. Joe Cole going to Lille on loan alone has saved the club £3 million in wages along with Aqualani at Milan etc too.
So the final figues are
Total In = £83.5 Million + (£30 Million net saving per season on club wage bill) = £113.5 Million
Total Out = £113 Million
Net spend = -£500,000.
Yes Kenny is operating the club at a NET PROFIT OF HALF A MILLION PROFIT since he rejoined the club, the bloke has only gone and won the Carling Cup, got the team in to the Semi Finals of the FA CUP and maybe another final and has brought through a few of the youth players into the first team since he joined. I would like to see another manager achieve all that with making a PROFIT and no net spend. Kenny working miracles. About time the REAL STORY was told chaps. I expect to see this trending worldwide on twitter within the next few hours.
Thank You
Players Out
Fernando Torres - £50 Million
Raul Meireles - £12 Million
Ryan Babel - £8 Million
David Ngog - £4 Million
Christian Poulsen - £2.5 Million
Emiliano InsUA - £2 Million
Paul Konchesky - £1.5 Million
Chris Mavinga - £1 Million
Milan Jovanovic - £1 Million
Daniel Ayla - £1 Million
Gerardo Bruna £500,000
= £83.5 Million
As well as getting them all of the wage bill, also got all these of the wage bill since last August
Jason Banton (released)
Deale Chamberlain (released)
Douglas Cooper (released)
Sean Highdale (released)
Steven Irwin (released)
Nikola Saric (released)
Gerardo Bruna (nominal to Blackpool)
Tom Ince (undiscl. to Blackpool)
Nabil El Zhar (free to Levante)
Sotirios Kyrgiakos (undiscl. to Wolfsburg)
Dani Pacheco (loan to Atletico Madrid)
Alberto Aquilani (loan to AC Milan)
Emiliano Insua (undiscl. to Sporting Lisbon)
Joe Cole (loan to Lille)
Christian Poulsen (undiscl. to Evian)
Villyan Bijev (loan to Fortuna Dusseldorf)
Philipp Degen (released)
---------------------------------------
Players In
Andy Carroll - £35 Million
Luis Suarez - £22 Million
Stewart Downing - £20 Million
Hendo - £16 Million
Charlie Adam - £7 Million
Sebastian Coates - £7 Million
Jose Enrique - £6 Million
Total In = £113 Million
-----------------------------------
Kenny has reportedly with his dealings of players out and new contracts for players in brought the clubs wage bill down by £30 million a season. Joe Cole going to Lille on loan alone has saved the club £3 million in wages along with Aqualani at Milan etc too.
So the final figues are
Total In = £83.5 Million + (£30 Million net saving per season on club wage bill) = £113.5 Million
Total Out = £113 Million
Net spend = -£500,000.
Yes Kenny is operating the club at a NET PROFIT OF HALF A MILLION PROFIT since he rejoined the club, the bloke has only gone and won the Carling Cup, got the team in to the Semi Finals of the FA CUP and maybe another final and has brought through a few of the youth players into the first team since he joined. I would like to see another manager achieve all that with making a PROFIT and no net spend. Kenny working miracles. About time the REAL STORY was told chaps. I expect to see this trending worldwide on twitter within the next few hours.
Thank You
Show More
the basic argument is that liverpool were rushing to waste money before a deadline, as if that made sense.
Why have they not panic bought this last January Jason when they have arguably been in a poorer position?
Becuase of the FFP rules, that is why.
I've indirectly answered this before.
When CL qualification is looking a bit dodgy, either Chelsea get rid of the manager or sign a few players.
During January this season, the manager's position was in danger. It's arguable how much input a manager at Chelsea has on transfer activity but there was going to be a large settlement if we were getting rid of him.
We just couldn't take the risk of paying big money on players in January and then having to sack the manager a month later.
All the signs in November were that we were intending to go into the market in January. It was the precarious nature of Villas Boas' position that seems to have put a block on that.
Becuase of the FFP rules, that is why.
I've indirectly answered this before.
When CL qualification is looking a bit dodgy, either Chelsea get rid of the manager or sign a few players.
During January this season, the manager's position was in danger. It's arguable how much input a manager at Chelsea has on transfer activity but there was going to be a large settlement if we were getting rid of him.
We just couldn't take the risk of paying big money on players in January and then having to sack the manager a month later.
All the signs in November were that we were intending to go into the market in January. It was the precarious nature of Villas Boas' position that seems to have put a block on that.
The basic argument is that Liverpool (wrongly) thought Andy Carrol was a good player worth signing and paid over the odds for him due to the reasons given.
An argument which was a mere suggestion, an hour ago.
Far more feasible is that Liverpool felt they needed to replace their best striker immediately - any influence of the impending FTP rules is conjecture and carries some serious flaws.
Far more feasible is that Liverpool felt they needed to replace their best striker immediately - any influence of the impending FTP rules is conjecture and carries some serious flaws.
Jason Liverpool had little to play for that season. It would have made far more sense in normal circumstances to wait until the end of the season and replace Torres.
Everyone at the time said £35m was far too much for Carrol. Can you suggest any reason why they would not have just waited to the end of the season?
As for Chelsea being 5th in January last year. Thats not true they were fourth, three pints ahead pf Spurs with a better goal difference, while they were only three or four points of Man City and Arsenal.
They actually fell further behind once Torres was signed.
To suggest they paid £50m for an out of form Torres to rescue their season is just b0llocks.
Everyone at the time said £35m was far too much for Carrol. Can you suggest any reason why they would not have just waited to the end of the season?
As for Chelsea being 5th in January last year. Thats not true they were fourth, three pints ahead pf Spurs with a better goal difference, while they were only three or four points of Man City and Arsenal.
They actually fell further behind once Torres was signed.
To suggest they paid £50m for an out of form Torres to rescue their season is just b0llocks.
JamDav
At the start of January, Chelsea were 5th. So, take your swear word, check your facts, and then grow up.
Everyone at the time said £35m was far too much for Carrol. Can you suggest any reason why they would not have just waited to the end of the season?
Who is everyone? It happened so quickly that people barely knew about it. To answer your question - they were panic buying. They had just sold their lead striker and felt they needed a replacement.
It's not exactly far fetched - unlike your suggestion.
At the start of January, Chelsea were 5th. So, take your swear word, check your facts, and then grow up.
Everyone at the time said £35m was far too much for Carrol. Can you suggest any reason why they would not have just waited to the end of the season?
Who is everyone? It happened so quickly that people barely knew about it. To answer your question - they were panic buying. They had just sold their lead striker and felt they needed a replacement.
It's not exactly far fetched - unlike your suggestion.
to elaborate, they were panic buying in a reduced pool, because KKKenny isn't up with world football, and has somehow managed to let the black african revolution that's taken place pass him by.
At the start of January they may well have been 5th Jason but by the end of January when they bought Torres they were 4th and not far behind Man City and Arsenal.
It is far fetched that Liverpool would panic buy in January when they had no need to. What were they panicking about exactly?
Almost every club states that there is no real value in January so 9/10 they would have waited until the summer to replace Torres.
The form Torres had been in for a year it was unlikely he would go on to rescue their season.
It is far more likely that Abramovich saw this as his last chance to splash huge money on a player he had always wanted and would replace Drogba for the next five years.
It is far fetched that Liverpool would panic buy in January when they had no need to. What were they panicking about exactly?
Almost every club states that there is no real value in January so 9/10 they would have waited until the summer to replace Torres.
The form Torres had been in for a year it was unlikely he would go on to rescue their season.
It is far more likely that Abramovich saw this as his last chance to splash huge money on a player he had always wanted and would replace Drogba for the next five years.
JamDav
So, you're telling the Chelsea fan that he doesn't remember correctly, are you?
They were 3 points ahead of Spurs having only just overtaken them, they were having a poor season and it was reported as worth the money to keep them in the CL. There's also no logic to suggest that spending £50 million in the summer would have made a huge difference in the FTP rules - as we have seen with Man City.
Face it - you offered a mere suggestion having no idea about it. Now you've got the bit between your teeth and can't accept any fault in your point, so you're debating as if it's some kind of fact.
So, you're telling the Chelsea fan that he doesn't remember correctly, are you?
They were 3 points ahead of Spurs having only just overtaken them, they were having a poor season and it was reported as worth the money to keep them in the CL. There's also no logic to suggest that spending £50 million in the summer would have made a huge difference in the FTP rules - as we have seen with Man City.
Face it - you offered a mere suggestion having no idea about it. Now you've got the bit between your teeth and can't accept any fault in your point, so you're debating as if it's some kind of fact.
Jason what am I lying about?
What were Liverpool panicking about?
Why did Aston Villa pay £18m for Darren Bent and Totenham try and sign every big name striker in europe.
These clubs were baing influenced by the new rules clearly.
What were Liverpool panicking about?
Why did Aston Villa pay £18m for Darren Bent and Totenham try and sign every big name striker in europe.
These clubs were baing influenced by the new rules clearly.
Liverpool could have signed Carroll on July 31st and he still wouldn't have counted towards FFP.
JamDav
Why did you go from offering it as a suggestion, saying you 'might be wrong', but now you're adamant that you're right?
You're just another forumite who can't admit when there are things wrong with his point, and too eager to 'win' a debate. You're not going to change, so I'm going to watch the football instead.
Any questions relating to 'what is wrong' with your point, try reading back through the thread and digesting the mutiple facts given to you. Try listening to the Chelsea fan. Try remembering how you felt when you admitted you might be wrong.
Goodbye.
Why did you go from offering it as a suggestion, saying you 'might be wrong', but now you're adamant that you're right?
You're just another forumite who can't admit when there are things wrong with his point, and too eager to 'win' a debate. You're not going to change, so I'm going to watch the football instead.
Any questions relating to 'what is wrong' with your point, try reading back through the thread and digesting the mutiple facts given to you. Try listening to the Chelsea fan. Try remembering how you felt when you admitted you might be wrong.
Goodbye.
So long Jason.
I have tried to teach you the truth but it appears you have not listened.
I have tried to teach you the truth but it appears you have not listened.
no, you've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand the detail of FFP and that's about it, I'm afraid.
So dodd getting his ass handed to him on a plate again.
Viva - what have I not understood about the FFP rules then?
As fair as I can see you are the one that doesnt have much clue about it.
As fair as I can see you are the one that doesnt have much clue about it.
the fact that they're brought in gradually.
the fact that the initial sanctions in three years time are fines.
the fact that teams can appeal those sanctions on the grounds that they are making progress towards balancing their books.
for starters.
the fact that the initial sanctions in three years time are fines.
the fact that teams can appeal those sanctions on the grounds that they are making progress towards balancing their books.
for starters.
I know fine that they are brought in gradually but the first seasons that the accounts are monitored is this year.
The fact is that all the top clubs have taken notice of this and spending last summer and the January just passed is down.
Viva I think you should write to all of europes top clubs to tell them to just ignore the FFP, clearly you know something they dont.
The fact is that all the top clubs have taken notice of this and spending last summer and the January just passed is down.
Viva I think you should write to all of europes top clubs to tell them to just ignore the FFP, clearly you know something they dont.
also, in football finance, a player's value shows as amortisation over the length of his contract. so carroll and torres will show up in the accounts anyway.
furthermore, had liverpool kept torres they could have offset his wages against their losses for this season because his contract predates 2010. which they can't do with carroll or any of the new signings.
furthermore, had liverpool kept torres they could have offset his wages against their losses for this season because his contract predates 2010. which they can't do with carroll or any of the new signings.
Well thats all well and good if they could have kept Torres but he wanted to go and put in a transfer request. There was little they could do to keep him.
You can quote all the different parts of the FFP rules you like, but the basic fact is that the spending of clubs will be decreasing because of it and that has already started.
You can quote all the different parts of the FFP rules you like, but the basic fact is that the spending of clubs will be decreasing because of it and that has already started.
Yes I do Viva.
Do you even understand that the new rules are seeing clubs taking more control over their spending since last summer?
Do you even understand that the new rules are seeing clubs taking more control over their spending since last summer?
Still going?
JamDav - we can debate the facts, but it would perhaps be a more worthwhile debate if you can explain how you can go from saying 'I might be wrong...' to being bullish and arrogant, as if you are somehow speaking of a fact?
Do a little research, because you're beginning to look a bit foolish on this thread.
JamDav - we can debate the facts, but it would perhaps be a more worthwhile debate if you can explain how you can go from saying 'I might be wrong...' to being bullish and arrogant, as if you are somehow speaking of a fact?
Do a little research, because you're beginning to look a bit foolish on this thread.
Looking foolish in what way Jason?
All your points you have made are either wrong or do not make sense.
All your points you have made are either wrong or do not make sense.
JamDav
Funny, you haven't explained why any of them are wrong or don't make sense.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is how you've gone from 'I might be wrong...' to certain that you're right.
Funny, you haven't explained why any of them are wrong or don't make sense.
The only thing that doesn't make sense is how you've gone from 'I might be wrong...' to certain that you're right.
cob was a bit too quick to post there - didn't read the conversation and got excited 
Jason
1. You claim that Chelsea were in 5th place and signed Torres for so much money as they were scared of not making the CL.
Well they were in fourth when they signed him and not far behind Man City and Arsenal. Why would they spend £50m on a player that had been badly out of form for a year to turn around their season in four months?
They signed him as he was reportedly one of the players Abramovich always wanted to get his hands on and this was the last opportunity for him to sanction huge transfers from his own pocket.
2. You claim Liverpool panic bought Carrol
What was the panic? Their season was virtually over and they had little to play for. Why did they not wait until the summer to get more value for money?
You think the new FFP had not impact on this spending I think it clearly did.
1. You claim that Chelsea were in 5th place and signed Torres for so much money as they were scared of not making the CL.
Well they were in fourth when they signed him and not far behind Man City and Arsenal. Why would they spend £50m on a player that had been badly out of form for a year to turn around their season in four months?
They signed him as he was reportedly one of the players Abramovich always wanted to get his hands on and this was the last opportunity for him to sanction huge transfers from his own pocket.
2. You claim Liverpool panic bought Carrol
What was the panic? Their season was virtually over and they had little to play for. Why did they not wait until the summer to get more value for money?
You think the new FFP had not impact on this spending I think it clearly did.
JamDav1982
01 Apr 12 18:18
Joined:
03 Jul 04
| Topic/replies: 3,465 | Blogger: JamDav1982's blog
Yes I do Viva.
--------------
well so why are sticking to this nonsense about liverpool needing to spend the money before the summer because of FFP?
01 Apr 12 18:18
Joined:
03 Jul 04
| Topic/replies: 3,465 | Blogger: JamDav1982's blog
Yes I do Viva.
--------------
well so why are sticking to this nonsense about liverpool needing to spend the money before the summer because of FFP?
JamDav
I'll correct you:
1.I told you that they were 5th at the start of January - they were. At the end of Jan, they were only 3 points ahead of 5th.
The Chelsea fan on this thread confirmed the fact that the transfer was seen as a boost to ensure that they qualified for the CL, and I distinctly remember it being reported as such.
I am sure the Chelsea fan knows more about his club than you do.
2. I agree that they shouldn't have panicked - but they clearly did panic, because they'd sold their best striker. No one at the club has suggested finance played a part, either.
I will now raise you this:
For instance, Fernando Torres’ £50m January switch from Liverpool to Chelsea would not show up as one lump sum in Chelsea’s 2010-11 accounts – instead it would be an annual amortisation of £9m (£50m fee divided by the 5.5 years of his contract). Add in an estimated salary of £8m and the total cost of Torres, as far as Uefa’s accountants are concerned, is £17m per year.
Kinda blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?
I'll correct you:
1.I told you that they were 5th at the start of January - they were. At the end of Jan, they were only 3 points ahead of 5th.
The Chelsea fan on this thread confirmed the fact that the transfer was seen as a boost to ensure that they qualified for the CL, and I distinctly remember it being reported as such.
I am sure the Chelsea fan knows more about his club than you do.
2. I agree that they shouldn't have panicked - but they clearly did panic, because they'd sold their best striker. No one at the club has suggested finance played a part, either.
I will now raise you this:
For instance, Fernando Torres’ £50m January switch from Liverpool to Chelsea would not show up as one lump sum in Chelsea’s 2010-11 accounts – instead it would be an annual amortisation of £9m (£50m fee divided by the 5.5 years of his contract). Add in an estimated salary of £8m and the total cost of Torres, as far as Uefa’s accountants are concerned, is £17m per year.
Kinda blows your theory out of the water, doesn't it?
OK Viva here is the simple explanation.
Liverpool sign a player in January for £35m rather than in the summer for £35m means that the £35m expenditure is not seen on the accounts for 2011-2012 when the FFP comes into play.
They have a player valued at £35m which as you said will amortise down over the contract, but the £35m spent on the player is not an expenditure as it would have been if the transfer was done in the summer.
Liverpool sign a player in January for £35m rather than in the summer for £35m means that the £35m expenditure is not seen on the accounts for 2011-2012 when the FFP comes into play.
They have a player valued at £35m which as you said will amortise down over the contract, but the £35m spent on the player is not an expenditure as it would have been if the transfer was done in the summer.
Despite Chelsea FC's intermediate holding company "Chelsea FC plc" making an sight improvement in its accounts to the net loss of £67.7 million in 2010–11 season, the effect of increase in intangible asset may led to higher cost in the future. As the transfer fee was considered as a purchase of a capital, the real effect of the transfer fee was the amortization of the transfer fee, which is proportionate to the contract length. For example, Torres's £50 million transfer fee had to be amortized to about £9 million a season, which in 2010–11 season represented only £4.5 million (due to half season). The club may lower the expense on amortization by selling players and extending the player contract.
Di Matteo is also running in theoretical profit.
Players bought -
Nobody £0
Players sold -
Nobody £0
Record -
Helped Chelsea to the semi-finals of the FA Cup (far more valuable than the CC)
Helped Chelsea to the quarter-finals of the Champions League currently winning 0-1.
Team currently sitting in 5th (still in sight of 3rd)
Won 6, Drawn 1 (Tottenham), Lost 1 (City) since taking over.
Thanks for listening.
Players bought -
Nobody £0
Players sold -
Nobody £0
Record -
Helped Chelsea to the semi-finals of the FA Cup (far more valuable than the CC)
Helped Chelsea to the quarter-finals of the Champions League currently winning 0-1.
Team currently sitting in 5th (still in sight of 3rd)
Won 6, Drawn 1 (Tottenham), Lost 1 (City) since taking over.
Thanks for listening.
Dodd the crux of your argument is that Carroll was a bad buy, I think you may have cracked the case, well done.
cob - if that's all you have taken from the debate, then you'd probably be better off on the CBeebies web site.
er no, it shows as a loss over the duration of his contract, regardless of when he was bought.
I have a strong feeling that Jam Dav is now desperately using Google to try and find something, anything to help him maintain this ridiculous stance. Quite why he chose to go from 'I might be wrong' to 'I'm definitely right' is a mystery...
... the pleasures of the Betfair forum.
... the pleasures of the Betfair forum.
No Jason, just watching the end of the Anderlecht game. The joy of betfair indeed.
As long as you and Viva think that the new FFP has no impact on the spending of teams thats fine, go with it.
As long as you and Viva think that the new FFP has no impact on the spending of teams thats fine, go with it.
JamDav
Of course, it's not surprising that you won't admit that you're wrong - people on here rarely do.
But spare yourself the embarrassment of trying to get yourself out of this, and run away like a coward - it would actually be better for you in the long run.
There has just been categoric evidence to blow your opinion out of the game - unlucky.
Of course, it's not surprising that you won't admit that you're wrong - people on here rarely do.
But spare yourself the embarrassment of trying to get yourself out of this, and run away like a coward - it would actually be better for you in the long run.
There has just been categoric evidence to blow your opinion out of the game - unlucky.
oh, it will have, no one's denying that.
just not in the way you're saying
just not in the way you're saying
Jason Dodd - I want to hazard a guess at your favourite film of all time as................. A Few Good Men
AM I RI?
AM I RI?
JamDav1982 Joined: 03 Jul 04
Replies: 3468 01 Apr 12 14:23
I may be wrong but was there not something at the time that Liverpool were willing to pay well over the odds rather than pay less in the summer due to the financial fair play rules starting that summer?
Also seem to remember some folk saying that Liverpool would have posted a profit on their accounts (in April?) with the £50m sale of Torres. Spending the £35m in January meant they were not losing out on the tax paid on that profit.
That could all be b0llocks but I do remember reasons like that being given at the time for the large fee.
Replies: 3468 01 Apr 12 14:23
I may be wrong but was there not something at the time that Liverpool were willing to pay well over the odds rather than pay less in the summer due to the financial fair play rules starting that summer?
Also seem to remember some folk saying that Liverpool would have posted a profit on their accounts (in April?) with the £50m sale of Torres. Spending the £35m in January meant they were not losing out on the tax paid on that profit.
That could all be b0llocks but I do remember reasons like that being given at the time for the large fee.
Jason - telling folk to run away like a coward, is that your way of trying to come across as some internet hard man?
You need to take betfair a touch less seriously and get a better grip on reality.
You need to take betfair a touch less seriously and get a better grip on reality.
JamDav
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm calling you a coward because you cannot acknowledge a point that clearly proves you wrong, and you cannot admit that you don't know anything about the subject that you're now being bullish about.
Of course, this will all now be my fault... I'm taking it seriously etc.
Read back how you changed your stance so quickly, and consider why that might have driven this down a route that was perhaps unnecessary.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm calling you a coward because you cannot acknowledge a point that clearly proves you wrong, and you cannot admit that you don't know anything about the subject that you're now being bullish about.
Of course, this will all now be my fault... I'm taking it seriously etc.
Read back how you changed your stance so quickly, and consider why that might have driven this down a route that was perhaps unnecessary.
Oh please dont call me a coward Jason....
Calm down and ghe
Calm down and ghe
Oh please dont call me a coward Jason.
Calm down and get a grip on reality son.
I dont know anything about the subject?
Right you think that the way clubs were spending was not influenced by the new FFP rules and they could have spent in the same manner that summer? Is that correct?
Calm down and get a grip on reality son.
I dont know anything about the subject?
Right you think that the way clubs were spending was not influenced by the new FFP rules and they could have spent in the same manner that summer? Is that correct?
Calm down and what...?
As predicted, you'll now move this thread onto an argument, ignoring that at the top of this page, the point that you debated with such vigour has indeed been proven incorrect. And this will, no doubt, be someone else's fault.
A bad day for jam dav.
As predicted, you'll now move this thread onto an argument, ignoring that at the top of this page, the point that you debated with such vigour has indeed been proven incorrect. And this will, no doubt, be someone else's fault.
A bad day for jam dav.
Care to answer my last question Jason?
Could those same clubs spent in the summer the same way they did last January?
Which is the basis of the argument really.
I say they couldnt you say they could.
Could those same clubs spent in the summer the same way they did last January?
Which is the basis of the argument really.
I say they couldnt you say they could.
JD you take a lot of pleasure in (what you believe is) proving people wrong, maybe people just type their thoughts on a forum without carefully thinking about every word and aren't bothered if someone disagrees. Unless you have conclusive proof and inside knowledge about the dealings of every club then you can't be 100% certain of anything.
Oh I'd forgotten that option.
Ask a different question and try in vain to change the debate.
Epic fail.
Ask a different question and try in vain to change the debate.
Epic fail.
Avoiding the question? Strange since you defended it so strongly Jason.
Could teams have spent in the summer the way they did last January?
Could teams have spent in the summer the way they did last January?
loadedgimp
I take pleasure in proving people wrong if they have been rude or bullish to me.
In this case, jam dav went as far as saying something that I had said was 'b0llocks', despite then being backed up by a Chelsea fan on the matter (it was about a Chelsea transfer motive).
Therefore, I make no apologies for being cocky when proving jam dav wrong.
I take pleasure in proving people wrong if they have been rude or bullish to me.
In this case, jam dav went as far as saying something that I had said was 'b0llocks', despite then being backed up by a Chelsea fan on the matter (it was about a Chelsea transfer motive).
Therefore, I make no apologies for being cocky when proving jam dav wrong.
Jam Dav
You're asking a question that's unrelated to the debate we were having. You're doing this in a vain attempt to make yourself feel like you have a point.
You've also avoided answering my question of why you have changed your stance so dramatically since your first post.
Therefore, no, I won't answer your question.
You're asking a question that's unrelated to the debate we were having. You're doing this in a vain attempt to make yourself feel like you have a point.
You've also avoided answering my question of why you have changed your stance so dramatically since your first post.
Therefore, no, I won't answer your question.
You have proved me wrong on precisely nothing Jason.
The basis of this argument is that I said that spending by the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool last January was influenced by the impending FFP rules. You disagreed.
Is this the argument in a nut shell?
The basis of this argument is that I said that spending by the likes of Chelsea and Liverpool last January was influenced by the impending FFP rules. You disagreed.
Is this the argument in a nut shell?
No, the basis of the argument was that Chelsea and Liverpool overpaid because of the FFP rules.
You were effectively saying that Chelsea decided they wanted to spend £50 million before the rules came in, so they spent it on a player not worth that much - which you have been told is wrong, not just by me, but by every other person on the thread.
You have not given a single shred of evidence for your opinion, and you admitted at the start that what you're saying 'might be b0llocks'.
Tell me, how is it possible that you can feel you have made a credible contribution to this thread? From where I'm sitting, you've made a fool of yourself.
You were effectively saying that Chelsea decided they wanted to spend £50 million before the rules came in, so they spent it on a player not worth that much - which you have been told is wrong, not just by me, but by every other person on the thread.
You have not given a single shred of evidence for your opinion, and you admitted at the start that what you're saying 'might be b0llocks'.
Tell me, how is it possible that you can feel you have made a credible contribution to this thread? From where I'm sitting, you've made a fool of yourself.
OK Jason since you wont answer my question I will move on as I know the answer.
It is clear you think the spending that January was not influenced by the new FFP rules, and the Torres transfer could have just as easily happened in the summer. With no impact on FFP rules.
I think you are wrong and so it seems did Uefa who were worried by the nature of the Torres transfer and sent out a warning to clubs on the back of that and spending by EPL clubs that January.
Cheslea should have really got Jason Dodd in to fight their corner, and tell Uefa what their rules really mean.
It is clear you think the spending that January was not influenced by the new FFP rules, and the Torres transfer could have just as easily happened in the summer. With no impact on FFP rules.
I think you are wrong and so it seems did Uefa who were worried by the nature of the Torres transfer and sent out a warning to clubs on the back of that and spending by EPL clubs that January.
Cheslea should have really got Jason Dodd in to fight their corner, and tell Uefa what their rules really mean.
and the Torres transfer could have just as easily happened in the summer.
It is cringeworthy that you think this was my point.
Not as cringeworthy as you being bullish after saying 'I might be wrong' though.
It is cringeworthy that you think this was my point.
Not as cringeworthy as you being bullish after saying 'I might be wrong' though.
Jason write to Ueaf and explain they were wrong to warn the likes of Chelsea about the Torres transfer going forward.
Far more productive than using your vast knowledge on here.
Far more productive than using your vast knowledge on here.
JamDav ignores point and makes flippant remark.
Shock horror
Shock horror
Cant use smileys in your letter to Uefa Jason, so would drop that habbit.
Terribly unprofessional.
Terribly unprofessional.
And another... jam dav moving back into 'ignore the topic' area, hoping it will all go away.
Oh dear
Oh dear
Ignoring topic?
Uefa agreed that the signing of Torres was not sustainable within the new FFP rules beginning that summer. Which was my point all along.
I have merely said that you have not convinced me of anything and you should teach those at Uefa how their rules work.
Simple instructions, now set to it.
Uefa agreed that the signing of Torres was not sustainable within the new FFP rules beginning that summer. Which was my point all along.
I have merely said that you have not convinced me of anything and you should teach those at Uefa how their rules work.
Simple instructions, now set to it.
Trying to change the subject again. I will post the summary; feel free to actually stay on topic.
No, the basis of the argument was that Chelsea and Liverpool overpaid because of the FFP rules.
You were effectively saying that Chelsea decided they wanted to spend £50 million before the rules came in, so they spent it on a player not worth that much - which you have been told is wrong, not just by me, but by every other person on the thread.
You have not given a single shred of evidence for your opinion, and you admitted at the start that what you're saying 'might be b0llocks'.
Tell me, how is it possible that you can feel you have made a credible contribution to this thread? From where I'm sitting, you've made a fool of yourself.
Tell me, are you not a little embarrassed by your attempts to be bullish, after starting the whole debate with the words 'I might be wrong'?
I think you should be.
No, the basis of the argument was that Chelsea and Liverpool overpaid because of the FFP rules.
You were effectively saying that Chelsea decided they wanted to spend £50 million before the rules came in, so they spent it on a player not worth that much - which you have been told is wrong, not just by me, but by every other person on the thread.
You have not given a single shred of evidence for your opinion, and you admitted at the start that what you're saying 'might be b0llocks'.
Tell me, how is it possible that you can feel you have made a credible contribution to this thread? From where I'm sitting, you've made a fool of yourself.
Tell me, are you not a little embarrassed by your attempts to be bullish, after starting the whole debate with the words 'I might be wrong'?
I think you should be.
My point is simple Liverpool and Chelsea over paid for players in January rather than waiting until the summer when the new FFP rules kick in.
Simple as that.
Uefa back up my opinion by the warnings they gave to English clubs that the type of spending would not be accepted going forward.
But then again they had never listened to the Jason Dodd. School boy error from Uefa.
Simple as that.
Uefa back up my opinion by the warnings they gave to English clubs that the type of spending would not be accepted going forward.
But then again they had never listened to the Jason Dodd. School boy error from Uefa.
There you go again...
'I might be wrong'... to trying to be cocky? It's laughable! I notice you're ignoring each reference to your first post, so I will continue to remind you.
Here's a one line explanation of where you're wrong, something that was mentioned a while ago. Just because the FPP rules will prevent transfers like the Torres one in the future, does not mean that the transfer was made because of the FPP rules due to come in.
Do you understand that?
'I might be wrong'... to trying to be cocky? It's laughable! I notice you're ignoring each reference to your first post, so I will continue to remind you.
Here's a one line explanation of where you're wrong, something that was mentioned a while ago. Just because the FPP rules will prevent transfers like the Torres one in the future, does not mean that the transfer was made because of the FPP rules due to come in.
Do you understand that?
JamDav1982 Joined: 03 Jul 04
Replies: 3468 01 Apr 12 14:23
I may be wrong but was there not something at the time that Liverpool were willing to pay well over the odds rather than pay less in the summer due to the financial fair play rules starting that summer?
Also seem to remember some folk saying that Liverpool would have posted a profit on their accounts (in April?) with the £50m sale of Torres. Spending the £35m in January meant they were not losing out on the tax paid on that profit.
That could all be b0llocks but I do remember reasons like that being given at the time for the large fee.
Fastforward half hour, and jam dav is 100% sure of his ground.
Amusing
Replies: 3468 01 Apr 12 14:23
I may be wrong but was there not something at the time that Liverpool were willing to pay well over the odds rather than pay less in the summer due to the financial fair play rules starting that summer?
Also seem to remember some folk saying that Liverpool would have posted a profit on their accounts (in April?) with the £50m sale of Torres. Spending the £35m in January meant they were not losing out on the tax paid on that profit.
That could all be b0llocks but I do remember reasons like that being given at the time for the large fee.
Fastforward half hour, and jam dav is 100% sure of his ground.
Amusing
Well Jason you are right those transfers may or may not have happened if the FFP rules were not in existence from that next summer.
Clearly we disagree on that.
But I think the fact Liverpool, Aston Villa and Chelsea smashed their transfer records and that Spurs were trying to shows that it was having an impact.
Clearly we disagree on that.
But I think the fact Liverpool, Aston Villa and Chelsea smashed their transfer records and that Spurs were trying to shows that it was having an impact.
Yip, Jason I made that opening post and then read up more about it quite quickly and decided it was an opinion that I agreed with.
Oh the shame.
Oh the shame.
JamDav
Yes, I'm aware that it's your opinion, but you have been given several reasons from various people why that might not be the case, and not given any evidence to back up your point.
A little tip - when you admit to not being at all sure about the subject, and are then given reasoned points as to why your opinion might be wrong, it is best not to become bullish and argumentative about the subject.
Surely you can see that?
Yes, I'm aware that it's your opinion, but you have been given several reasons from various people why that might not be the case, and not given any evidence to back up your point.
A little tip - when you admit to not being at all sure about the subject, and are then given reasoned points as to why your opinion might be wrong, it is best not to become bullish and argumentative about the subject.
Surely you can see that?
ip, Jason I made that opening post and then read up more about it quite quickly
Yes - within half hour, in a time that you were continually posting, you'd gone from admitting your opinion 'might be b0llocks', to being bullish and argumentative.
And you think that's reasonable?
That must have been some research.
Yes - within half hour, in a time that you were continually posting, you'd gone from admitting your opinion 'might be b0llocks', to being bullish and argumentative.
And you think that's reasonable?
That must have been some research.
Jason, Jason change the record.
Its clear as day clubs were looking to spend big before the FFP rules came in.
All the evidence points to that.
Its clear as day clubs were looking to spend big before the FFP rules came in.
All the evidence points to that.
All the evidence points to that.
You're just another deluded forumite who is never wrong - ignoring the fact that several people have come onto the thread to try and explain why you're wrong.
The difference, this time, is that you admitted at the start that you had no idea what you were on about... so there's no escape clause for you.
You're just another deluded forumite who is never wrong - ignoring the fact that several people have come onto the thread to try and explain why you're wrong.
The difference, this time, is that you admitted at the start that you had no idea what you were on about... so there's no escape clause for you.
Now, now Jason I didnt say my opinion may be b0llocks I said the opinions on FFP etc may be and I may have picked them up wrong.
It only takes half an hour to google and read some of those opinions and form your own point of view.
Surely you know the virtues of google, after all you have been copying and pasting comments from wikipedia. That textbook reliable source.
It only takes half an hour to google and read some of those opinions and form your own point of view.
Surely you know the virtues of google, after all you have been copying and pasting comments from wikipedia. That textbook reliable source.
jam dav
There's a difference between having a point of view, and what you have done. You have suddenly become qualified to insist that you're right, despite having no idea half hour earlier.
You've ignored all of the points given to you, and given none of your own.
You've even asserted that a Chelsea fans view of his own side's transfer activity is 'b0llocks', because you apparently know more than him, and everyone else.
But I suppose you're never wrong, are you?
There's a difference between having a point of view, and what you have done. You have suddenly become qualified to insist that you're right, despite having no idea half hour earlier.
You've ignored all of the points given to you, and given none of your own.
You've even asserted that a Chelsea fans view of his own side's transfer activity is 'b0llocks', because you apparently know more than him, and everyone else.
But I suppose you're never wrong, are you?
Jason, clearly you know better than Uefa.
The facts are that a lot of clubs were looking to spend big and smash their transfer records last January for a reason, with the FFP rules being a large part of that.
Look at Spurs, they seemed to have bid for every big name striker going last January for sums up to £35m
They got turned down every time, so why was this money not spent in the summer?
The facts are that a lot of clubs were looking to spend big and smash their transfer records last January for a reason, with the FFP rules being a large part of that.
Look at Spurs, they seemed to have bid for every big name striker going last January for sums up to £35m
They got turned down every time, so why was this money not spent in the summer?
Oh right, so UEFA said that Chelsea bought Torres because of the FFP rulings, did they? They were in charge of Chelsea's transfer policy, were they? Must have missed that.
Here's a summary:
- After 20 minutes of Googling, you are qualified to tell everyone the facts about this topic, and anyone who disagrees is wrong
- You are qualified to tell a Chelsea fan that his view of the club's activity is 'b0llocks', because you know more than him.
Yes jam dav, you really are the king of the debate school.
Here's a summary:
- After 20 minutes of Googling, you are qualified to tell everyone the facts about this topic, and anyone who disagrees is wrong
- You are qualified to tell a Chelsea fan that his view of the club's activity is 'b0llocks', because you know more than him.
Yes jam dav, you really are the king of the debate school.
No Jason after half an hour of reading about it I had formed an opinion which I was prepared to back and nothing has changed my mind on that.
I like being lectured about googling from someone who uses quotes from wikipedia to back their argument.
Good work Jason. Now get that letter to Uefa penned. The clubs of europe need you poindexter.
I like being lectured about googling from someone who uses quotes from wikipedia to back their argument.
Good work Jason. Now get that letter to Uefa penned. The clubs of europe need you poindexter.
You haven't backed up anything - you haven't provided a shred of evidence.
And you're not giving an informed opinion - you're telling people that you are definitely right... half hour after admitting that you didn't have a clue.
The quote from wikipedia was helping to educate you about what ammortisation means, because you made it clear that you didn't have a clue. However, now that you have googled it, I am sure you will be in line for a lecturing role at a top university soon - because you only need 20 mins to be an expert that is 100% right, don't you?
And you're not giving an informed opinion - you're telling people that you are definitely right... half hour after admitting that you didn't have a clue.
The quote from wikipedia was helping to educate you about what ammortisation means, because you made it clear that you didn't have a clue. However, now that you have googled it, I am sure you will be in line for a lecturing role at a top university soon - because you only need 20 mins to be an expert that is 100% right, don't you?
JamDav you are talking cobblers I'm afraid.
I'll state this to you again. Chelsea went big for Torres because they were concerned about the CL place.
I think we were 4th at the time we actually signed him with Tottenham close behind. However, what you haven't taken into account is that was from a position where we had been points clear at the top at the start of November. We were in shocking form at the time and more pertinently every one of our forwards was in terrible form. As fans, there was real concern about CL qualification.
And this UEFA "warning" you keep banging on about means nothing as they can't possibly know what is happening behind the scenes with clubs and sponsorship deals etc.
And I'll repeat once again that Chelsea spent another 50 million on players in the summer as well so clearly were continuing to spend big. You don't seem capable of picking that up for some reason.
I'll state this to you again. Chelsea went big for Torres because they were concerned about the CL place.
I think we were 4th at the time we actually signed him with Tottenham close behind. However, what you haven't taken into account is that was from a position where we had been points clear at the top at the start of November. We were in shocking form at the time and more pertinently every one of our forwards was in terrible form. As fans, there was real concern about CL qualification.
And this UEFA "warning" you keep banging on about means nothing as they can't possibly know what is happening behind the scenes with clubs and sponsorship deals etc.
And I'll repeat once again that Chelsea spent another 50 million on players in the summer as well so clearly were continuing to spend big. You don't seem capable of picking that up for some reason.
Jason come on now stop making things up. I know fine well what ammortisation means, its really not a difficult concept.
Poor from you, resorting to such skull duggery.
You have made not one point that changes my opinion, clearly it means a lot to you so for that I apologise.
Poor from you, resorting to such skull duggery.
You have made not one point that changes my opinion, clearly it means a lot to you so for that I apologise.
Dodd is an argumentative **** who always thinks he is right.When most of the time he isn't.
Marcce - the problem with that is why pay vastly over the odds for a player that had been out of form for a year to save your season in four months?
That doesnt add up.
That doesnt add up.
Jam Dav
Marcce's post says it all, at this stage.
I think they call that game, set and match? So, on that bombshell, I bid you a good night.
Unlucky
Marcce's post says it all, at this stage.
I think they call that game, set and match? So, on that bombshell, I bid you a good night.
Unlucky
You sound quite desperate their Jason, best for you to retire for the evening I think.
Good you have taken my advice.
Good you have taken my advice.
ahh yet again betfair forum scribblings proving how the majority of men fall victim to ego and pride
Quite simply because the belief was he was out of form because he was sulking at broken promises from Liverpool regarding the players that were going to be brought in.
It's not a difficult concept. We went way overboard for plenty of players in seasons before. Shevchenko and Wright-Phillips to name 2.
The original bids for Torres were between 28-35 million I believe. That was our valuation. But Roman had decided this was a player he was determined to get and it became obvious that it was going to take stupid money to get him.
The thinking appears to have been that even if we valued him at 35 million, we risked losing a lot more than the extra 15 million if we didn't get CL qualification.
It's not a difficult concept. We went way overboard for plenty of players in seasons before. Shevchenko and Wright-Phillips to name 2.
The original bids for Torres were between 28-35 million I believe. That was our valuation. But Roman had decided this was a player he was determined to get and it became obvious that it was going to take stupid money to get him.
The thinking appears to have been that even if we valued him at 35 million, we risked losing a lot more than the extra 15 million if we didn't get CL qualification.
So you are saying that Chelsea paid double Torres valuation in order to qualify for the CL?
Why do clubs not just do this every season when they are in 4/5th place?
There was no way that Torres was worth £50m and he had been just as bad if not worse for Spain than Liverpool.
I cant believe he was bought to assure CL qualification when he was playing so poorly.
Why do clubs not just do this every season when they are in 4/5th place?
There was no way that Torres was worth £50m and he had been just as bad if not worse for Spain than Liverpool.
I cant believe he was bought to assure CL qualification when he was playing so poorly.
You forget we had been chasing him for at least a8 months before that.
And also cast your mind back to the one team that he was on fire against for Liverpool during those months. Yep, it was us which in Roman's mind added to the theory that he was only playing badly because he was sulking.
If you read this, you'll understand why we could very possibly go mad again this summer even taking FFP into account.
http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2012/2/9/2787509/chelsea-financial-fair-play-analysis
And also cast your mind back to the one team that he was on fire against for Liverpool during those months. Yep, it was us which in Roman's mind added to the theory that he was only playing badly because he was sulking.
If you read this, you'll understand why we could very possibly go mad again this summer even taking FFP into account.
http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2012/2/9/2787509/chelsea-financial-fair-play-analysis
Fantastic thread! Daglish is single handedly making a b4lls out of your club and you think it's great! I love it.
Bwahahaha!
This time next year will you still be counting the pennies whilst trying to get out of the relegation zone? I hope Daglish stays there until he has the club at least relegated out of the Championship. After Alex Ferguson, Daglish is my favourite manager for the sterling work he's doing at Anfield Road. Truly a legend! It makes me happy.
Bwahahaha!
This time next year will you still be counting the pennies whilst trying to get out of the relegation zone? I hope Daglish stays there until he has the club at least relegated out of the Championship. After Alex Ferguson, Daglish is my favourite manager for the sterling work he's doing at Anfield Road. Truly a legend! It makes me happy.
DOGlish is a **** manager out of touch with the modern game.
You believe you are saving £30m a year on wages? Rubbish, the players you have brought in will cover the same amount that you had supposedly saved. Moronic.
Dalglish = Business god. Single handed revival of Pool as a financial tour-de-force in years to come imho..
Arguably the most embarrassing post to have ever graced these foums.
No surprise it came from UKMug.
No surprise it came from UKMug.
Can't agree IVW, UKM has looked beyond the surface of the figures and produced an analysis worthy of accolade. Where everybody else has 'scratched the surface' like Tony Robinsons Time team, UKM has gone further for info and consequently can be justly hailed as Howard Carter.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539