Coutinho out? If he's moving in the summer that covers the transfer fee's of VVD & Keita. Interesting about the wage increase though..
Yes, I expect that to be the case, though it's still a case of you can spend the lets say 120mil they get from Coutinho in any way and dumping it all on one overpriced player still prevents them spending that money and getting better value out of it.
Sorry, I thought we were going to have a sensible conversation. Yes, Liverpool spending £75m on VVD means they have less to spend elsewhere. It does not however mean that they now cannot afford to make the signings they want to in the future which I assume was your point.If it wasn't then your point was totally pointless
Amortisation costs in the context of what was being discussed is also totally meaningless. Amortisation is a paper cost, not a cash cost.
A paper cost isn't pointless, from the point of your finances, there is no cash, there is only what goes on the books. If you didn't show the amortisation then you'd have 65mil higher profits in that season, but the season in which the players were brought would have those numbers added to them, so at the end of the day the actual difference on the books is £0. Your ability to spend money depends on the actual profits of the club, the cash it brings in and the financial fair play also limits the losses you can make, writing off amortisation while at the same time claiming I don't know anything about finances is embarrassing and your general way of discussing, bring up something you think people don't understand then tell them they don't know what they are talking about... only of course when they disagree with you. Amortisation costs are relevant to your finances and saying otherwise couldn't be more wrong, it's also funny because whenever someone else talks about their club and what they can spend you bring up amortisation constantly.
Anyway the point I was making was both, 75mil on a single player for a club with finances FAR below the other clubs spending similar amounts on single players is absurd and will absolutely hit you both long and short term.
As for the stadium expansion - one thing the club was always very clear about was that it had to be cash positive. In other words, the increased revenue had to cover all financing costs and leave money left over - it's also reported that financially the new stand has far exceeded expectations. I sincerely mean this in the nicest possible way, you do not have a clue about Liverpool's finances judging by your post.
This makes zero sense, everyone who ever made a stadium expansion or built a new stadium did to make more money, well done for stating the obvious. But no one makes a stadium and pays it off straight away. If that was possible every single club would do it immediately. Arsenal increased profits by nearly 50mil, but we borrowed 300mil to afford it and we're still paying off that loan and will be for another ~15 years. Cash positive doesn't mean you'll have huge profits from it immediately, it means the incoming should pay off the spending for it slowly over time. It's not going to have a massive impact on profit, it will increase revenue but you've also got to take the hit for building it into account.
And you're now saying VVD chose us over City? 1 post ago City didn't want him because he was a waste of money. Talk about changing your argument to suit whatever point you're trying to make.
More of your selective and strange arguing... how is this changing my argument in the slightest? City offer 50mil and 120k a week, Liverpool offer 75mil and 170k a week.... City decide he's a waste of money at 75mil/170k a week and decide to look elsewhere for better value. Somehow you believe this is mutually exclusive things and I've changed my argument, which is funny because of how amortisation is either really important or not at all depending on the argument you're making.
Your finances do not list individual transfer fees in the years you make them anywhere, they ONLY list amortisation, it's directly linked to your profit loss and is the only way transfer fees are represented in your finances, to talk about them like they are meaningless is laughable, the cash paid and when is what is irrelevant when talking about finances, the only relevant thing is the amortisation costs.
The cost on the accounts of this signing is £20-25m per season, most of that will be covered by the profit (paper profit) from the sale of Sakho alone. Liverpool have sold very well over the last couple of seasons so on the accounts they should be doing quite well and our net outlay on transfers has been well within our EBITA (actual cash profits the club makes before all paper write downs) so from a cash flow point of view we're fine too. I sincerely mean this in the nicest possible way, you do not have a clue about Liverpool's finances judging by your post.
