Liverpool F.c.

[Jimjim]

Once again those are some steep prices for SE Asia and for a pre-season match, no matter it's Liverpool or not, in my opinion.

[joker7]

Good info there on Jordan Henderson. If this morning's news is anything to go buy and Wikipedia already has him signed up then this lad is a done deal.

Quite how he managed to persuade the Bruce an ex Utd player to buy a Liverpool player Ill never know but it looks a good deal. I thought N'gog actually scored some good goals for us when he got a game and could do fairly well if he has a run in the team. But 7 millions - not sure about that.

[Abrak]

Good info there on Jordan Henderson. If this morning's news is anything to go buy and Wikipedia already has him signed up then this lad is a done deal.

Quite how he managed to persuade the Bruce an ex Utd player to buy a Liverpool player Ill never know but it looks a good deal. I thought N'gog actually scored some good goals for us when he got a game and could do fairly well if he has a run in the team. But 7 millions - not sure about that.

Well to be fair to Sunderland they sold Henderson for 13m + David Ngog. Now on that basis you can really say that Ngog is worth anything you like. My view is that Sunderland are not getting a full 20m and Ngog is not worth a full 7m.

From LFC's point of view getting rid of Ngog makes a lot of sense. We dont need in on the pay roll, he isnt good enough to get another game and his departure leaves room for Connor Wickham who is supposed to have far more potential.

[Abrak]

I am slightly surprised how many people think that Jordan Henderson is a very expensive signing at 18-20m. He might be only 20 but he has 71 caps for Sunderland and one full cap for England so he cant be too bad and is likely to improve. To say he is 'unproven' or a 'two season wonder' is axiomatic for a 20 year old. His wage of 70k is not outrageous and assuming he does he improve as he ages there is no particular reason to think that in say 4 years time he shouldnt be worth 15m or so.

I find it far easier to understand than say Harry who wants to buy Scott Parker at 30 for 10m and Drogba at 33 for probably around the same price - both on higher wages I suspect. Obviously they are both better players at present but those transfer fees will erode to zilch.

Most managers have a fixed transfer budget and so they look for immediate returns on the field and the long term costs of buying aging players - either declining performance relative to salary or the loss on the initial transfer budget - doesnt bother them as they have likely changed jobs. I guess Harry isnt too bothered as he will be gone within a year or two.

Buying young players with potential means a higher upfront cost and less immediate impact on the pitch but they should improve and retain their transfer value and bring long term benefit. FSG, which is not capital constrained, can spend far more in the transfer market if the losses they bear on their initial cost are that much lower. If Kenny has a fixed 40m budget with the aim of getting LFC in the top 4 obviously buying Henderson doesnt make much sense. But my guess is that so long as the investment makes long term sense they will have much more flexibility with the budget.

[binnsy]

Anyone going to Malaysia? Not me, I got my fill of preseason football in Bangkok two years ago, ha ha.

And the team we are playing in China, Guangdong Sunray Cave, is not even in the Chinese Super League, but in China League One! They're positioned in 3rd place right now in the table, but should be a massacre...

As for Henderson, I think this articles sums up nicely how King Kenny will approach the transfer market and it's a must-read for any LFC fan:

http://thekop.liverp...35/173471.html?

Rumour up here in Buriram that Liverpool are coming on July 20th?

Anyone know about this????

[PST]

Am i right in saying that tickets for the Malaysia game are only available in Malaysia?.

pst

[Abrak]

Anyone who wants to understand LFC/FSG obsession with buying young players might like to take a look at these stats. It refers to a study done on all transfers over Euro10m between 2000 and 2007. In total it covers 278 transfers.

And it shows the average price per transfer

Defenders

18-22----------13x-------14m

23-25----------10x-------16m

26-29----------26x-------16m

29 and above---2x-------13m

Mid

18-22----------19x-------18m

23-25----------35x-------19m

26-29----------38x-------22m

29 and above----5x-------16m

Forwards

18-22----------29x-------18m

23-25----------37x-------19m

26-29----------39x-------18m

29 and above---7x--------16m

The numbers are quite interesting. A few points to note.

1) What ever price you pay the transfer fee will be worth zero when he retires.

2) Buying very young players doesnt give you much upside in value although they retain their value that much longer.

3) It is very surprising that the value of a player 23-25 is not higher than the 26-29 bracket after all you know how good he is going to be and he is only getting older.

4) The price doesnt seem to fall much for players 29 and older. This is a statistical quirk because this only looks at transactions over 10m and there are very few - just 14 - in the over 29 year old bracket. That means that a lot of players who were bought 26-29 may well have been sold under 10m or simply held to retirement.

5) If you dont sell before the end of the 26-29 bracket you are going to be stuffed. It is something of a mystery why people would buy in the 26-29 bracket.

As I say it is a bit of a mystery why clubs like to buy Berbatovs at 28 or Sneijders at 27 for such massive fees. It seems pretty obvious you should buy players before the age of 26 and sell before they are aged 29 when their value starts to depreciate rapidly unless you want to hold a player until retirement at which point he will be worthless.

[SantiSuk]

Since when did football club managements and owners take decisions based on logical financial decisions? OK maybe a few are starting now but not sufficiently many to give you a transfer market that reflects rational decision making. Maybe that's why the results don't look rational to someone with a rational financial brain [interesting post]

[Abrak]

Since when did football club managements and owners take decisions based on logical financial decisions? OK maybe a few are starting now but not sufficiently many to give you a transfer market that reflects rational decision making. Maybe that's why the results don't look rational to someone with a rational financial brain [interesting post]

Well absolutely right. Abromavich simply sticks his finger in the air sees which way the wind is blowing and picks a player.

I hope you would agree though that you dont need to have a financial brain to work out those numbers should not be like that.

It takes slightly more knowledge to work out what it should look like. I reckon that a players peak transfer price should be around the age of 23 or 24 and decline at least 25% by the age of 28.

But this is classic FSG/Comolli stuff. They will have a very clear and detailed rational price curve over time and they will place that above the traditional market view of buying Sneijders at 27 and Berbatov at 28 for massive fees. Essentially while that curve exists they will trade off it until the curve eventually reflects a more rational valuation of the underlying fundamentals.

[Abrak]

Getting back to my massively interesting stats on transfer fees, a Liverpool supporter sent me an email saying that he had compiled and published data on all PL transfers over 4500 pounds. What he found was that the average transfer fee virtually halved between the age of 29 and 30. Obviously that vaguely fits with the data I showed but it is incredible none the less. (Well it is incredible to me I guess it is less interesting than spring onion flavored crisps to others.)

[Jimjim]

Anyone going to Malaysia? Not me, I got my fill of preseason football in Bangkok two years ago, ha ha.

And the team we are playing in China, Guangdong Sunray Cave, is not even in the Chinese Super League, but in China League One! They're positioned in 3rd place right now in the table, but should be a massacre...

As for Henderson, I think this articles sums up nicely how King Kenny will approach the transfer market and it's a must-read for any LFC fan:

http://thekop.liverp...35/173471.html?

Rumour up here in Buriram that Liverpool are coming on July 20th?

Anyone know about this????

Ya I doubt they would come to Buriram.

I think originally they wanted to go to China, Malaysia and S. Korea but then they canceled the S. Korea trip for some reason, probably a few reasons.

So now it's true they may want to add a third date to the calendar, I suppose they could go to Bangkok, again, but I personally have seen no announcement of a third date to add to this tour.

[StevieH]

Anyone going to Malaysia? Not me, I got my fill of preseason football in Bangkok two years ago, ha ha.

And the team we are playing in China, Guangdong Sunray Cave, is not even in the Chinese Super League, but in China League One! They're positioned in 3rd place right now in the table, but should be a massacre...

As for Henderson, I think this articles sums up nicely how King Kenny will approach the transfer market and it's a must-read for any LFC fan:

http://thekop.liverp...35/173471.html?

Rumour up here in Buriram that Liverpool are coming on July 20th?

Anyone know about this????

Ya I doubt they would come to Buriram.

I think originally they wanted to go to China, Malaysia and S. Korea but then they canceled the S. Korea trip for some reason, probably a few reasons.

So now it's true they may want to add a third date to the calendar, I suppose they could go to Bangkok, again, but I personally have seen no announcement of a third date to add to this tour.

i did wonder if the recent marketing deal announced with honda thailand might see LFC add a bangkok date to the tour.

[BlueScouse]

I must say I like Liverpoo's new strip

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/06/16/liverpool-fc-unveil-new-cyan-blue-away-kit-in-tribute-to-club-s-first-ever-strip-100252-28885904/

[carmine]

Since when did football club managements and owners take decisions based on logical financial decisions? OK maybe a few are starting now but not sufficiently many to give you a transfer market that reflects rational decision making. Maybe that's why the results don't look rational to someone with a rational financial brain [interesting post]

Well absolutely right. Abromavich simply sticks his finger in the air sees which way the wind is blowing and picks a player.

I hope you would agree though that you dont need to have a financial brain to work out those numbers should not be like that.

It takes slightly more knowledge to work out what it should look like. I reckon that a players peak transfer price should be around the age of 23 or 24 and decline at least 25% by the age of 28.

But this is classic FSG/Comolli stuff. They will have a very clear and detailed rational price curve over time and they will place that above the traditional market view of buying Sneijders at 27 and Berbatov at 28 for massive fees. Essentially while that curve exists they will trade off it until the curve eventually reflects a more rational valuation of the underlying fundamentals.

Your enthusiasm to embrace your new owners and that french bellend is commendable but if classic FSG/Comolli is paying 35m for a dog average unproven at the top level carthorse then i'd be more inclined to find it thoroughly terrifying.

[StevieH]

I must say I like Liverpoo's new strip

http://www.liverpool...00252-28885904/

haha, i think only evertonians do. it's an appalling balls-up by the club this.

[Jimjim]

I must say I like Liverpoo's new strip

http://www.liverpool...00252-28885904/

haha, i think only evertonians do. it's an appalling balls-up by the club this.

But we've had second or third kits with plenty of blue, before, right? 3rd kit in 2001 had tons of blue, I think...

I was wondering about this before it came out, and I just had this weird premonition that it would be white with some blue in it. I have no idea why, but when I saw it, I wasn't surprised at all.

Maybe it wasn't a premonition, maybe I had seen some guesses at the third kit by seeing images of "leaked" kits and that was one of them.

Personally, I don't care about the kit, it's just a third kit. Bet we won't even use it that much. Honestly, I really hate the 2nd kit, also. Black with white stripes and some small red lines? Not loving it, at all.

I'd really like and 2nd kit that's yellow. Or perhaps, a gold kit with red trim, or something like that. Something with some freaking color. These ones are just...underwhelming. I'd like to see some more color!

Also, these are the last Adidas kits, right? So will be interesting to see what Warrior comes up with...

Edited June 17, 2011 by Jimjim

[StevieH]

I must say I like Liverpoo's new strip

http://www.liverpool...00252-28885904/

haha, i think only evertonians do. it's an appalling balls-up by the club this.

But we've had second or third kits with plenty of blue, before, right? 3rd kit in 2001 had tons of blue, I think...

I was wondering about this before it came out, and I just had this weird premonition that it would be white with some blue in it. I have no idea why, but when I saw it, I wasn't surprised at all.

Maybe it wasn't a premonition, maybe I had seen some guesses at the third kit by seeing images of "leaked" kits and that was one of them.

Personally, I don't care about the kit, it's just a third kit. Bet we won't even use it that much. Honestly, I really hate the 2nd kit, also. Black with white stripes and some small red lines? Not loving it, at all.

I'd really like and 2nd kit that's yellow. Or perhaps, a gold kit with red trim, or something like that. Something with some freaking color. These ones are just...underwhelming. I'd like to see some more color!

Also, these are the last Adidas kits, right? So will be interesting to see what Warrior comes up with...

the 2001 did have some really dark blue on it year, but it almost looked black. and it was on a yellow kit which was different too. i'm baffled by this decision, by both the club and adidas. it's surreal and looks like a marseille shirt.

agree about the second kit by the way - black is a nonsense and designed for the jeans-wearing market. my preferred scheme is home kit all red, away kit white shirt, black shorts, red socks, third kit (if we must have one), yellow.

[StevieH]

sunderland at home on the opening day, that'll do. we've only been at home 2 out of the past 11 seasons on the first day so it's about time.

[Penkoprod]

sunderland at home on the opening day, that'll do. we've only been at home 2 out of the past 11 seasons on the first day so it's about time.

Doesnt seem too bad a run-in from March onwards, either. Only The Arse and Chelski (both at home) are possible losses/draws, should we be challenging for anything. Just got to watch out for banana skins along the way

Interesting possible EPL debut for Henderson, too

Penkoprod

Edited June 17, 2011 by Penkoprod

[Abrak]

Your enthusiasm to embrace your new owners and that french bellend is commendable but if classic FSG/Comolli is paying 35m for a dog average unproven at the top level carthorse then i'd be more inclined to find it thoroughly terrifying.

I find it strange as a Spurs supporter that you find that deal so difficult to understand.

J.Henry is an investment professional. He is not in the business of owning a football club without a striker. So in order to sell on a striker aged 27 for 50m he needs to replace him with another striker. A replacement striker aged 22 costing 35m is clearly a deal in which he comes out on top. Of course he could have chosen not to buy a striker leaving the team short a striker but that would be a large footballing decision to take over immediate financial gain. It could have cost us a CL place. Spurs decided not to overpay for a striker and it may have proved expensive. As an owner of a football club, especially given our recent past, it would have been rather irresponsible to have left the club short of a key striker. Of course he could have also chosen not to sell until the summer but that would have had its own costs and might have been a far worse decision.

It seems pretty clear to me that on the final day of that crazy window, you were left with a choice between a crazy buy or no buy at all. It made Bent early on look pretty smart and Suarez an act of genius. But Liverpool overpaid because they had a crazy sell and Spurs didnt overpay because it was a hefty gamble. Carroll is only ridiculous expensive if there was something cheap about (which there wasnt) or if you believe the owner should have left the club without a 'striker'. (That would be a very unusual decision for Henry to make especially with his little knowledge of football and having just placed Kenny as Manager.)

The new owner has come into the club and has said that the club will live with in its means and that its revenues will go back into the club. So he can hardly sell a player and pocket the cash. He sells a players and gets a better deal in return. Or he cannot sell the player which given the deal is absurd. At any rate if you do not see that the Carroll purchase was anything other than strategic, I would be surprised. It was simply a response to the Torres deal.

[carmine]

Your enthusiasm to embrace your new owners and that french bellend is commendable but if classic FSG/Comolli is paying 35m for a dog average unproven at the top level carthorse then i'd be more inclined to find it thoroughly terrifying.

I find it strange as a Spurs supporter that you find that deal so difficult to understand.

J.Henry is an investment professional. He is not in the business of owning a football club without a striker. So in order to sell on a striker aged 27 for 50m he needs to replace him with another striker. A replacement striker aged 22 costing 35m is clearly a deal in which he comes out on top. Of course he could have chosen not to buy a striker leaving the team short a striker but that would be a large footballing decision to take over immediate financial gain. It could have cost us a CL place. Spurs decided not to overpay for a striker and it may have proved expensive. As an owner of a football club, especially given our recent past, it would have been rather irresponsible to have left the club short of a key striker. Of course he could have also chosen not to sell until the summer but that would have had its own costs and might have been a far worse decision.

It seems pretty clear to me that on the final day of that crazy window, you were left with a choice between a crazy buy or no buy at all. It made Bent early on look pretty smart and Suarez an act of genius. But Liverpool overpaid because they had a crazy sell and Spurs didnt overpay because it was a hefty gamble. Carroll is only ridiculous expensive if there was something cheap about (which there wasnt) or if you believe the owner should have left the club without a 'striker'. (That would be a very unusual decision for Henry to make especially with his little knowledge of football and having just placed Kenny as Manager.)

The new owner has come into the club and has said that the club will live with in its means and that its revenues will go back into the club. So he can hardly sell a player and pocket the cash. He sells a players and gets a better deal in return. Or he cannot sell the player which given the deal is absurd. At any rate if you do not see that the Carroll purchase was anything other than strategic, I would be surprised. It was simply a response to the Torres deal.

Interesting stuff.....but he's really very average, which is my point. i have also acknowledged the ridiculous money paid for Torres. However, you are insinuating this was part of some great Comolli masterplan then thats nothing short of laughable. Now, if Carrol was any good, or better still, a proven player at the top level, then it would make more sense, baring in mind his age and a very decent sell on. But he's not proven and he seems like a sicknote too. All it appears to be is a grotesque waste of money. Suarez, as i've said before was a terrific buy and i still can't get my head round why Redknapp was'nt interested. However, as good a buy as he was, and however much you recieved for Torres does'nt make it good business spending that sort of cash on such a player.

Just my thoughts over my first cup of tea this morning.

[Abrak]

Interesting stuff.....but he's really very average, which is my point. i have also acknowledged the ridiculous money paid for Torres. However, you are insinuating this was part of some great Comolli masterplan then thats nothing short of laughable. Now, if Carrol was any good, or better still, a proven player at the top level, then it would make more sense, baring in mind his age and a very decent sell on. But he's not proven and he seems like a sicknote too. All it appears to be is a grotesque waste of money. Suarez, as i've said before was a terrific buy and i still can't get my head round why Redknapp was'nt interested. However, as good a buy as he was, and however much you recieved for Torres does'nt make it good business spending that sort of cash on such a player.

Just my thoughts over my first cup of tea this morning.

It was clearly no master plan. And we all know if we could have all turned our watches back we would have bought Suarez. Virtually everyone would have given their right arm for him but it just so happened to fall to Kenny/Comolli (which was quite lucky as things turned out.)

Every thing else happened in a flash - Torres put in his transfer, Chelsea their ridiculous bid. In hindsight Henry/Comolli/Kenny should not have panicked and kept their dosh I guess/maybe but I am not so sure that things would have turned out better. In hindsight Harry should have ludicrously overpaid for some striker by 15m to get the extra 30m of CL revenues. Aston Villa made the right move with Darren Bent especially given Young and Downing's stats.

My personal view is that Liverpool could never be a top side while they were built around Torres - they needed to get rid of him as part of the rebuilding the process. The extent that Carroll plays we shall see but we can live without him - he is young and should not be written off. Our strategy does seem to be to build the best team in 2014 which in 2014 might look pretty smart.

[carmine]

Interesting stuff.....but he's really very average, which is my point. i have also acknowledged the ridiculous money paid for Torres. However, you are insinuating this was part of some great Comolli masterplan then thats nothing short of laughable. Now, if Carrol was any good, or better still, a proven player at the top level, then it would make more sense, baring in mind his age and a very decent sell on. But he's not proven and he seems like a sicknote too. All it appears to be is a grotesque waste of money. Suarez, as i've said before was a terrific buy and i still can't get my head round why Redknapp was'nt interested. However, as good a buy as he was, and however much you recieved for Torres does'nt make it good business spending that sort of cash on such a player.

Just my thoughts over my first cup of tea this morning.

It was clearly no master plan. And we all know if we could have all turned our watches back we would have bought Suarez. Virtually everyone would have given their right arm for him but it just so happened to fall to Kenny/Comolli (which was quite lucky as things turned out.)

Every thing else happened in a flash - Torres put in his transfer, Chelsea their ridiculous bid. In hindsight Henry/Comolli/Kenny should not have panicked and kept their dosh I guess/maybe but I am not so sure that things would have turned out better. In hindsight Harry should have ludicrously overpaid for some striker by 15m to get the extra 30m of CL revenues. Aston Villa made the right move with Darren Bent especially given Young and Downing's stats.

My personal view is that Liverpool could never be a top side while they were built around Torres - they needed to get rid of him as part of the rebuilding the process. The extent that Carroll plays we shall see but we can live without him - he is young and should not be written off. Our strategy does seem to be to build the best team in 2014 which in 2014 might look pretty smart.

I think Liverpool will be lookng very good too. Regards Suarez, i felt his quality was obvious going back to the world cup. Its absolutely no surpriseat all that he's started well. He'll just get better. What i am so annoyed about is that our chief scout, Ian Bloomfield, went over to Amsterdam a number of times and we still did'nt sign him. And all this on the back of having three incumbant strikers that could'nt score in nana plaza.

i have to presume he was'nt there to watch football.

[Abrak]

I think Liverpool will be lookng very good too. Regards Suarez, i felt his quality was obvious going back to the world cup. Its absolutely no surpriseat all that he's started well. He'll just get better. What i am so annoyed about is that our chief scout, Ian Bloomfield, went over to Amsterdam a number of times and we still did'nt sign him. And all this on the back of having three incumbant strikers that could'nt score in nana plaza.

i have to presume he was'nt there to watch football.

To be honest I think these managers could save themselves a lot of time and money if they just did a straw poll of Thaivisa. There wasnt a single poster who didnt think that Suarez would turn out to be a good buy. Nor that Abromavich was an ass to buy Torres for 50m. Nor that Carroll was a bit rich at 35m even if he turned out to be quite qood. As for bidding for Modric for 22m from Chelsea of all people - they have to be having a laff. If I was Liverpool I would put in a cheeky 15m bid for one of their players except I cant really think of one that 15m quid would be regarded as a cheeky bid for.

[Penkoprod]

As has been discussed here many, many times...there are options to putting investments in your Thai partner's name. If done properly, no dealing with the wife's relatives.

And good luck with Cambodia. From what I have read, there are many problems in that country also.

On a side issue (talking of transfers) looks like we had a close call with Marveaux

Seems he's yet ANOTHER sicknote. And we sure got more than our fair share of them !!!!

Back to the drawing board for Kenny/Commolli

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/marveauxs-move-to-anfield-on-hold-2299443.html

Penkoprod

[Abrak]

Still the really good news is that Spurs are 1/7 on to buy Cole which is about as much of a dead cert as you can get.

[Penkoprod]

Still the really good news is that Spurs are 1/7 on to buy Cole which is about as much of a dead cert as you can get.

Quick !!!!!!

Someone/everyone light a candle and pray !!!!!!

Penkoprod

[smokie36]

Still the really good news is that Spurs are 1/7 on to buy Cole which is about as much of a dead cert as you can get.

I want to see a pic of your betting slip Abrak......meanwhile can you tell me the odds on him staying at the bindippers....

[carmine]

Still the really good news is that Spurs are 1/7 on to buy Cole which is about as much of a dead cert as you can get.

.....and yet another example of scrotum face taking us backwards. I'm still reeling from his latest goalkeeping acquisition.

[Abrak]

BTW for anyone who wants to understand how player transfers work under FFP and how to fairly simply value players contracts.

Here is a fairly good working model with a very easy to understand explanation. It is however rather long.

http://tomkinstimes.com/2011/06/fair-play-for-fenway/