** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alpherah said:
I dont think any true liverpool fan is desperate for us to become Man City Mk II, it's just insane that two cowboy business men can buy the club without a penny of their own money, buy players without a penny of their own money and expect this debt to pay for itself with our revinue, and even when it becomes obvious this isnt going to happen, still sell lies to the banks to keep extending the loan (And get more and more in debt, making a sale even less likely) and 'the powers that be' in RBS and the english FA allowed and allow this still to happen. Madness.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Liverpool or Utd? :D
 
Just seen Silva's gone to City, though I see you guys beat me to the punch!
here's a linky anyway...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/8775740.stm

Damn you Man City!
I don't necessarily think it'll mean Johnson will be warming the bench, I think they'll be the two first choice wingers even though they are similar players. Although Bellamy might have something to say about that... and of course there is the small matter of Robinhood...

---------Adebarndoor--------
Silva-------Tevez----Johnson
-------Barry-----De Jong-----



In fact lets hope Silva takes to the Prem as well as Robinho! :D
 
Looks like Silvestre, Gallas and Sol are all moving on, no surprises really with Gallas and Silvestre but it looks like Sol has been offered a 2 year contract and weekly football at Celtic, can't blame him for going but who are we going to bring in for cover? At the moment all we'll have is Koscielny, Vermaelen and Djourou, and beyond those all we have are youngsters like Bartley. It'll be interesting to see what Wenger does now in regards to defensive signings as losing 3 CB's and replacing them with 1 unproven just doesn't add up.
 
Lol @ people on the Fulham message board saying Fulham have no ambition, and are going to boo Roy Hodgson on his return. Oh we have some nice fans :(

At least Zamora has turned down Birmingham again.

Alan Curbishley has been installed as the clear favourite to replace Liverpool-bound Roy Hodgson as manager of Fulham.
Click to expand...

/wrists

Italian club Napoli, who have qualified for this seasons Europa League, are interested in signing Fulham and United States attacking midfielder Clint Dempsey during the summer transfer window, as their search for attacking options continues, according to Italian newspaper Il Mattino.
Click to expand...

/wrists

Looks like should Hodgson go we'll probably lose Mike Kelly (Asst), Hangeland, Schwarzer and some of our potential targets.

Although, if Hodgson needs the money for Hangeland, I assume the fans would take exchanges etc, imagine there's a few players that could be used to try get Hangeland.
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
Why do you bother reading anything he has to say? He constantly repeats the same ill informed nonsense over and over again; so much so that if you didn't know better, you might actually start to believe him.

Even after Riise's payslip got posted online he was still adamant that he was earning £90k per week.

I hope H&G sell up, buy Arsenal, sack Wenger and DM will be happy and finally shut up.
Click to expand...

Sorry please do elaborate, the only time I think Riise's payslip has ever been brought up was after his payslip was leaked, so you're talking rubbish as per usual and posting incorrect information as per usual about me.

Alpherah said:
Haha :D
+1




No, the yanks need that, but in doing so means we'l be stuck with them for a significantly longer period of time, and thus still remain stuck as a selling club untill one or both of the yanks either drop dead, get killed or sell on.
I'd rather be relegated then stay another season under their ownership.


I dont think any true liverpool fan is desperate for us to become Man City Mk II, it's just insane that two cowboy business men can buy the club without a penny of their own money, buy players without a penny of their own money and expect this debt to pay for itself with our revinue, and even when it becomes obvious this isnt going to happen, still sell lies to the banks to keep extending the loan (And get more and more in debt, making a sale even less likely) and 'the powers that be' in RBS and the english FA allowed and allow this still to happen. Madness.
Click to expand...

This is the exact type of post I'm talking about. So you want the owners gone so you don't have to be in debt anymore, but Liverpool fans aren't desparate to be owned by someone rich enough to pay off the debt.

Do you realise your post makes literally no sense at all, you don't want to be a selling club, you don't want to pay off your debt, you don't want to be owned by anyone able to pay off the debt.

seriously tell me what you as a Pool fan want, and how you think its going to happen, I mean, seriously?

You know Ashley brought Newcastle WITH the debt, and had to pay off vast sums of debt and is STILL paying off debt after reducing the wages significantly, thats what will happen to Liverpool unless a uber rich Arab buys them, which as I said as a very very slim shot.

Liverpool owners are likely to sell but they are still likely to be in significant debt when they do so, and thats what Liverpool fans seem unwilling to accept, you seem to magically think someone will pay the owners 800million of which 400million will pay off the debt, again unless its some uber rich arab dude its not going to happen.

So the realistic outcome is with the current owners, or new owners the debt will be significant, which means you won't be getting a Mourinho in with money to spend any time soon. For several years to come Liverpool will be buying 1-15million pound players and trying to sell them off for 50million when they get the chance. Its called not going bankrupt and WILL be the priority for ANY owner they have before ridiculous spending to go after the title.

As to if a business should be able to be bought with loans only, thats up to the banks to offer the loans and the owners to choose to sell to such a buyer, its life, bad business happens.
 
drunkenmaster said:
This is the exact type of post I'm talking about. So you want the owners gone so you don't have to be in debt anymore, but Liverpool fans aren't desparate to be owned by someone rich enough to pay off the debt.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood.

The point is that Liverpool fans don't mind having no sugardaddy plowing money in for transfers, but we don't want leveraged debt either.

We'd just like to have it back to a point where we could reinvest the profits the club make into something other than debt-servicing every year.
 
sammo62 said:
I think you misunderstood.

The point is that Liverpool fans don't mind having no sugardaddy plowing money in for transfers, but we don't want leveraged debt either.

We'd just like to have it back to a point where we could reinvest the profits the club make into something other than debt-servicing every year.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkenmaster View Post
Liverpool as they stand right this second, need to pay off debt, thats it, thats the no.1 priority, Benitez is NOT the guy to do that.


No, the yanks need that, but in doing so means we'l be stuck with them for a significantly longer period of time, and thus still remain stuck as a selling club untill one or both of the yanks either drop dead, get killed or sell on.
I'd rather be relegated then stay another season under their ownership.
Click to expand...

Thats the original quote and response though, he thinks only the yanks want to pay off debt, and quite clearly thinks getting rid of the yanks means getting rid of the debt, that only the yanks need to pay off debt and the last bit is just ridiculous and I'll assume he's kidding.

I understand fans seem to want to be able to invest, but as with that guy, and many others, they seem to think paying off debt isn't required because selling the club will solve it instantly, dozens of clubs have been sold WITH their debt with new owners who see it as a long term investment, tighten the belts for several years, pay off the debt then have a profitable business on their hands. Thats the way 99.999% of business owners will run their business and how most takeovers happen, the other 0.0001% is crazy rich Arab oil tycoons who will buy the club, pay off the debt and start spending immediately.

That guy CLEARLY thinks paying off debt is only the Yanks problem, its not, its Liverpool FC's problem and right now they first thing they should be doing is somewhat what Newcastle, belatedly, have done. Reduce wages, it doesn't make you much more money coming 7th than 17th in the league, but sure costs a heck of a lot more. Liverpool need to sell Torres, cash in on Gerrard while he's worth anything, buy budget players and pay off a significant amount of debt to get it under control, reducing the interest payments massively and then they can start to invest again even before the debt hits £0, as the interest on a £400mil debt is exponentially higher than the debt on £50-100mil of debt, as it gets smaller they can refinance when its less risky. But they HAVE to reduce it and as quickly as possible.

They can either be smart now, get a good manager with an eye for buying cheap and getting more out of his players than maybe any other manager around right now, save cash, pay off debt and be in a strong position in 4-5 years, or save nothing, keep Torres/Gerrard, watch their value drop, save no money, see the debt grow and be screwed. Those are the two options Liverpool have assuming the big oil tycoon doesn't come in and fix everything for them.

Remember though that every new billionaire that gets involved gets even more expensive and less appealing, Chelsea's sugar daddy had little opposition, City have come in, spent more and got less as they are fighting a larger number of rich teams, to come in and get Liverpool out of debt aswell as invest the same amounts City/Chelsea have will cost a new owner a lot more than City/Chelsea have spent, so they aren't quite as appealing as people think.

Frankly Spurs, Fulham, half the other clubs are cheaper because for 800million they'll have the club and the worlds best squad, at Liverpool they'll spend £800million on the club and debt and not a single player.
 
Ah ok I see where you are coming from.

I guess for me the yanks are the debt. They bought the club on a leveraged buyout. All I want is for us to go back to a healthy state where the club can spend its profits on itself rather than on the yanks' deal to buy the club.

Just so you know 95% of that debt comes from the takeover deal, not from Liverpool FC overspending.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Thats the original quote and response though, he thinks only the yanks want to pay off debt, and quite clearly thinks getting rid of the yanks means getting rid of the debt, that only the yanks need to pay off debt and the last bit is just ridiculous and I'll assume he's kidding.

I understand fans seem to want to be able to invest, but as with that guy, and many others, they seem to think paying off debt isn't required because selling the club will solve it instantly, dozens of clubs have been sold WITH their debt with new owners who see it as a long term investment, tighten the belts for several years, pay off the debt then have a profitable business on their hands. Thats the way 99.999% of business owners will run their business and how most takeovers happen, the other 0.0001% is crazy rich Arab oil tycoons who will buy the club, pay off the debt and start spending immediately.

That guy CLEARLY thinks paying off debt is only the Yanks problem, its not, its Liverpool FC's problem and right now they first thing they should be doing is somewhat what Newcastle, belatedly, have done. Reduce wages, it doesn't make you much more money coming 7th than 17th in the league, but sure costs a heck of a lot more. Liverpool need to sell Torres, cash in on Gerrard while he's worth anything, buy budget players and pay off a significant amount of debt to get it under control, reducing the interest payments massively and then they can start to invest again even before the debt hits £0, as the interest on a £400mil debt is exponentially higher than the debt on £50-100mil of debt, as it gets smaller they can refinance when its less risky. But they HAVE to reduce it and as quickly as possible.

They can either be smart now, get a good manager with an eye for buying cheap and getting more out of his players than maybe any other manager around right now, save cash, pay off debt and be in a strong position in 4-5 years, or save nothing, keep Torres/Gerrard, watch their value drop, save no money, see the debt grow and be screwed. Those are the two options Liverpool have assuming the big oil tycoon doesn't come in and fix everything for them.

Remember though that every new billionaire that gets involved gets even more expensive and less appealing, Chelsea's sugar daddy had little opposition, City have come in, spent more and got less as they are fighting a larger number of rich teams, to come in and get Liverpool out of debt aswell as invest the same amounts City/Chelsea have will cost a new owner a lot more than City/Chelsea have spent, so they aren't quite as appealing as people think.

Frankly Spurs, Fulham, half the other clubs are cheaper because for 800million they'll have the club and the worlds best squad, at Liverpool they'll spend £800million on the club and debt and not a single player.
Click to expand...

So we can add another item to the list of things you know little about but pretend to - business and finance.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Sorry please do elaborate, the only time I think Riise's payslip has ever been brought up was after his payslip was leaked, so you're talking rubbish as per usual and posting incorrect information as per usual about me.
Click to expand...

You write so much crap that I guess it's difficult to remember:
drunkenmaster said:
Risse riding the bench was on 90K, which suggest most of their first team isn't far off that.
Click to expand...
drunkenmaster said:
Risse was(wasn't he on circa 80k a week, bench player more often than not last year)
Click to expand...

There's 2 quick examples and there was 1 not that long ago too which I couldn't find, going through your posts is too painful on the eyes. Both times I pointed out that his payslip had been leaked and he earned nothing like that but we all know you don't like to let sense get in the way of your views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom