Liverpool F.c.

[rott]

"Actually the outlook for these businesses is pretty good. We can guarantee that no new City's will come along and your two biggest competitors have to cut back spending to get somewhere near breakeven."

No Gaurantees in life never mind football mate.

Who are the two biggest competitors you go on about?

And also for clarity who was the last paragraph about?

PS.... Comolli is the director of football and will have a big say in the players that the club have/will signed something that will get to Kenny sooner rather than later,especially if they don't perform as a TEAM!

Comolli=background irritation to a man with the LFC history of KK

I genuinely dont think there is a single bit of evidence that Comolli and Kenny dont actually work well together. I actually think that it is a pretty ridiculous concept that Kenny has the time and can put in enough due diligence to justify making a 100m player acquisition program. It really is a lot of money to ask someone to spend on his time off while his full time job is managing the club. I mean if you give the same guy responsibility for managing a club you have spent 300m on also responsibility for spending 100m on player acquisitions you clearly would seem to have far more money than sense.

Yes sorry I see your big two competitors at the moment as City and Chelsea and as one is losing 130m a year and the other 70m a year and they must show some semblance of breakeven under FFP and they are unable to beat you with massive losses, the odds of you beating them over time are fairly high. In fact given that breakeven is a prerequisite for CL then your costs are determined by your revenues and as Man U revenues are by far the highest in the league it is axiomatic that they can have the highest costs and achieve breakeven which is the basic parameter for winning the league (I think you have to go back to 2004 or so for a club that has actually beaten you in the league and had lower costs). What is more you have the largest global fan base and that is bound to drive revenues over the next 20 years.

So what I meant in the last paragraph is that at present your matchday revenue from 75,000 fans is roughly equal to your commercial revenue from a fan base that could easily be 300m or certainly grow to that sort of number. I would guess that the worlds largest social network is Facebook with 500m subscribers and a valuation of US$50bn. Seems to me that Man U fans are a social network too and far easier to monetize than Facebook. I find it totally extraordinary that the EPL has created probably the largest global sports business and they are basing their profit model on screwing an extra dime out of their match day attendance who's revenues are virtually irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. And how come Bayern Munich's commercial revenues are 40% higher than ManU's do you really think they are a bigger franchise? So your fastest area of growth is where you have the largest competitive advantage.

This word ''franchise'', that Abrak has used, I first heard it in a football context from either H or G describing Everton as a ''smaller franchise'', is the word now common currency amongst fans? Is this just an aberration or a further creeping Americanisation, we already go to the game instead of the match, ask the barperson if we can get a drink etc. Sorry, I've got my old git head on today I'll either start drinking or go to sleep.

[Abrak]

Good post abrak. The way i see the preferable approach in the transfer market would be in a line drawn between the possibly over agressive (not meant detrimentally) approach of FSG and the pathetic undervaluing in buying players coupled with the ridiculous overpricing of players to be offloadind that appears to be Tottenhams current stance.

I also echo your point on supporting the club as opposed to the shareholders.

The key difference between Henry and say Wenger is that they are both stats geeks but Wenger is a value investor and Henry trades the data. Most particularly Henry does not believe in predicting future prices while Wenger's philosophy is that prices will move towards value. A classic case would be Carrol, Wenger would believe a sin to overpay and Henry believes it is a sin to be without a striker.

Henry is a very disciplined guy. So for instance I suspect we totally ignore market price because inherently you cant say value x at 25 while the market price is 14 and you decide to buy up to 16, then all you are doing is buying from the market price and not from value. So if you are prepared to pay up to 20 then you pay it anyways. The market price is what is paid and sometimes you have to overpay for the best gifts to get the seller to sell.

One other discipline that Henry will have is to say decide 'whether we need a striker' or 'whether we will pick up a striker that we think is good value.' Downing was clearly a purchase that they knew was going to be pricey.

As an aside I think that Levy is not going to really challenge for the top 4 this year. Why would you? If you look at your accounts you are the only club outside CL that is profitable. LFC, Chelsea and City are making losses. So you should increase spending when all the clubs have to breakeven. You have already lost to City because they will spend as much as it takes to beat you. Imagine if all the clubs had to breakeven this year you would qualify by default. Levy has invested 91m in your squad over the past 5 years and you have gone from net cash of 26m to 79m of debt. The premier league is in fact simply a race to 'create the largest losses' by spending the most amount of money. The winner is the club which is most stupid. It is sort of why Wenger is tearing his hair out. If all that is going to happen this year is that everyone is going to see who can spend the most and destroy the most value it is simply a 'Mug' and not a 'trophy'. So while you lot are destroying value, Wenger is creating value by paying down his debt because spending is value destructive. And when clubs have to breakeven Wenger will increase spending as it will be value creative.

And Carmine the reason you shouldnt compete is that you dont need to because you dont need CL to be profitable. Everyone else needs CL as part of any business plan that they might possibly have. And when you make it to CL you can stay there because you can increase your spending while whoever you kicked out has to reduce theres. And you have to see it from Levy's point of view which is that he has had to show financial discipline and compete against people who are simply prepared to lose as much money as possible. He has kept you financially stable and he has provided a lot of funding for the squad. All the shareholders lost there shirts and supporters really didnt get much. And noone really cares or likes him. You have a 70m lower cost base than Arsenal who are generally regarded as the best run club. And as the most profitable club outside the CL you will have a winning strategy in any case.

[sharecropper]

This glib support of cod-business philosophy is wearing a bit thin.

Had those other yanks spouted it you would have all been up in arms. You know, the ones you loved, then hated.

Now you seem happy to internalise this business crap, which seems to me to be totally inappropriate in a sporting arena, about players who could die in a car crash tomorrow, get imprisoned for some awful crime or break a leg in training (or, like Torres, spectacularly lose their form).

So I don't buy that bloke's philosophy at all. It almost seems invented to justify stupid prices they have paid for some of their recent talent.

And I rather think this small quote exemplifies how much of a nonsense it all is, and I worry that, yet again, Liverpool supporters have been led out of Hamlyn following a merry tune.

Wenger would believe a sin to overpay and Henry believes it is a sin to be without a striker.

1. Who's talking about "sin"? And this isn't a zero sum game.

2. Wenger would be absolutely right about overpayment. Particularly about the stupid money you spent on Carroll. But presumably your easy answer to that is contained in your comment that: "Most particularly Henry does not believe in predicting future prices"meaning (to non-Liverpool fans, he's a fool with his money, but to you lot he's a visionary. Yet you all slag off Roy for his signings with no eye on future value, and you gave Rafa a free pass on his crap ones where you have been badly burned. Was Rafa also a "trend investor" If so, why wasn't Roy? He certainly didn't try to predict future prices.

3. To be without a striker? That's not what's in issue - of course you would have bought a striker. It's whether the price you paid was over the top or not. The answer to that depends whether you support Liverpool or not.

And as Carroll, and other Liverpool purchases, totally skewered the transfer market this closed season, and everyone but Liverpool fans are laughing up their sleeves about the naivety of your cash splashing, I would suggest Henry went back to business school to finish his studies.

Funny how Suarez, who is a great buy, isn't ever criticised as a signing. Does that mean Henry paid too little for him? Is he kicking himself every night because he should have paid 20 million more? Or does it mean Suarez is - at least on Henry's cod-business/philosophical view - crap?

I'm confused.

[Abrak]

This glib support of cod-business philosophy is wearing a bit thin.

Had those other yanks spouted it you would have all been up in arms. You know, the ones you loved, then hated.

Now you seem happy to internalise this business crap, which seems to me to be totally inappropriate in a sporting arena, about players who could die in a car crash tomorrow, get imprisoned for some awful crime or break a leg in training (or, like Torres, spectacularly lose their form).

So I don't buy that bloke's philosophy at all. It almost seems invented to justify stupid prices they have paid for some of their recent talent.

And I rather think this small quote exemplifies how much of a nonsense it all is, and I worry that, yet again, Liverpool supporters have been led out of Hamlyn following a merry tune.

Wenger would believe a sin to overpay and Henry believes it is a sin to be without a striker.

1. Who's talking about "sin"? And this isn't a zero sum game.

2. Wenger would be absolutely right about overpayment. Particularly about the stupid money you spent on Carroll. But presumably your easy answer to that is contained in your comment that: "Most particularly Henry does not believe in predicting future prices"meaning (to non-Liverpool fans, he's a fool with his money, but to you lot he's a visionary. Yet you all slag off Roy for his signings with no eye on future value, and you gave Rafa a free pass on his crap ones where you have been badly burned. Was Rafa also a "trend investor" If so, why wasn't Roy? He certainly didn't try to predict future prices.

3. To be without a striker? That's not what's in issue - of course you would have bought a striker. It's whether the price you paid was over the top or not. The answer to that depends whether you support Liverpool or not.

And as Carroll, and other Liverpool purchases, totally skewered the transfer market this closed season, and everyone but Liverpool fans are laughing up their sleeves about the naivety of your cash splashing, I would suggest Henry went back to business school to finish his studies.

Funny how Suarez, who is a great buy, isn't ever criticised as a signing. Does that mean Henry paid too little for him? Is he kicking himself every night because he should have paid 20 million more? Or does it mean Suarez is - at least on Henry's cod-business/philosophical view - crap?

I'm confused.

Sharecropper, so much stupidity in one post that it is difficult to know where to start.

First of all JW Henry was a legendary investor who was basically the first person to successfully trade off historic price patterns which is generally thought impossible. You can certainly go to business school and study his work. If you have any idea how difficult it is to even conceive of a successful trading strategy in corn futures let alone make US$1.6bn you might think again.

You implied in your post that you could predict future prices. Which just makes you stupid or heroically optimistic. At least Henry knows what he doesnt know.

I assume you are saying he paid above market prices for players. You are almost certainly bound to do this because you wouldnt try and buy a player that you didnt think was undervalued at market price. If you think you can buy a player below the market price then all it tells you is that you dont know what market price is or you think the seller is deranged. To the extent we value a player well above the market price we buy him on that valuation rather than an opinion of what you think his value should be. It would be inherently stupid to not buy a player which we thought was undervalued on the basis that other people thought he was overvalued.

I think you mean that the purchases 50m or so was far too high. Lets say 15m too high (if you think it is a bit more we are bound to value them more highly than you which is why we bought them.) Now we will amortize that 15m over 5 years which is 3m a year. Now perhaps your plan is that we shouldnt have bought any players at all because they were overvalued. Does that mean Commolli should come back next year.

But lets be honest here. What valuation really matters here. If you say your valuation it would be lunacy if you said the market valuation we presumably made that. The only valuation that matters is our valuation and if you think we should be interested in someone elses you would be wrong. And if our valuation results in us paying a price well above market we will as a matter of discipline. If we didnt pay too much above the market price then you end up missing out on Hendersons who you value highly. If we paid attention to market price and other peoples opinions we would just go round in circles. And if we were interested in any other persons opinion of the value of Henderson we would be incredibly stupid.

And if you wish to state that we overvalued, overpaid for Henderson it is total bullshit because any valuation that you make has absolutely no substance whatsoever that would have any relevance to ours. And we didnt overpay or else we would have got him cheaper. If our valuations were based on market price and other peoples opinions we would get nowhere. If we were to say that we wont buy Henderson at 14 because he is looking a bit expensive it would be based on what precisely. When you say we overvalued players it is based on absolutely nothing. It was presumably the price of getting things done and if you think Downing is worth 16m but you wouldnt pay 20m I hope you appreciate it isnt much of a thought. And you are all getting excited over absolutely nothing. We could have done nothing and sat around saying that prices were too expensive presumably on the basis that we thought they would come down.

What is rather pathetic is the talk about valuation, overpaid - now I know you know absolutely nothing. We wouldnt buy Henderson at 16 instead of 14. We wouldnt not pay 16 because it was well above the market price. The prices we dealt at were the price of doing business. We can sit around all day and say something overpriced, overvalued but I think it is a bit rich to say that we shouldnt be doing these deals because it implies that overpriced means the price will come down and overvalued implies you know the valuation. And I know you know neither. That is a simple fact. So by default we tend to get on with it. What you should accept is even if there is a degree of overvaluation we can see the cost is pretty minimal and any assessment of overvaluation, overpaying is only worthwhile on the basis of a fall in future prices. And we can all sit around waiting for predictions to come true forever.

[Jimjim]

To suggest an incredibly successful businessman go back to business school...thanks for the laugh!

[sharecropper]

To suggest an incredibly successful businessman go back to business school...thanks for the laugh!

Blimey you lot are brainwashed. Don't be afraid to question the actions and thoughts of those who control you. Where's Socialist StevieH when you need him?

I have rarely seen such sycophantic forelock-tugging and cap-doffing on a thread.

But I must explain my own stupidity: I am not a Liverpool fan, and therefore have retained some critical faculty when looking at corporate bullsh*t instead of swallowing it and regurgitating it whole.

I do not believe stock market (or other market) investment principles can govern investment in human capital such as football players.

Other points:

Do you honestly believe either on a "visionary trend price" or on value, Carroll is worth 35 million quid? You could have paid 20 and got him, either then or at the end of the season; even less perhaps.

That would be my idea of canny business, not wasting a load of money that could be better spent elsewhere in strengthening the squad.

The prices we dealt at were the price of doing business. We can sit around all day and say something overpriced, overvalued but I think it is a bit rich to say that we shouldnt be doing these deals because it implies that overpriced means the price will come down and overvalued implies you know the valuation.

How do you reconcile these comments with nickel and diming Blackpool over Adam? Why not just pay the asking? Or are some players overpriced and some not?

I am a cynic about glib Americans spouting corporate-speak, and I would expect Liverpool fans would be as well, especially after the last lot.

I bet Toon fans first thought the same about Aahley being a business genius, and I'd love to check back on here (but I can't be bothered) to see how you all feted the H&G bandwaggon when that rolled into Anfield with its own brand of corporate snake oil.

And I would be interested if you could answer my question about whether you believe Roy's signings,seen as a "trend investor" could also be seen as "visionary", and whether Rafa's were too?

If not what distinguishes them when they paid over the odds (for some serious non-performers), from The Sage of Fenway's purchases?

[carmine]

"Where's socialist StevieH?" ........... Where did that come from?!!

this thread s already back to its best and the season has'nt even started.

[smokie36]

"Where's socialist StevieH?" ........... Where did that come from?!!

this thread s already back to its best and the season has'nt even started.

Wait until they lose a few on the trot...then the infighting will begin again in earnest....look forward to the KK and Comolli camps snapping at each other!

[carmine]

"Where's socialist StevieH?" ........... Where did that come from?!!

this thread s already back to its best and the season has'nt even started.

Wait until they lose a few on the trot...then the infighting will begin again in earnest....look forward to the KK and Comolli camps snapping at each other!

there arn't two caps really. They just think he's great because they don't know what else to think. What i do know is that if they do lose a few on the trot Damien will do a hacket job on Dalglish.

But relax smokie, i doubt they will lose a few on the trot. (In safe hands with Dalglish and i'm sure he'll keep that twit as far removed as possible) We might lose a few on the trot though, and i bet we don't get that long awaited top quality striker either.

[sharecropper]

"Where's socialist StevieH?" ........... Where did that come from?!!

this thread s already back to its best and the season has'nt even started.

Wait until they lose a few on the trot...then the infighting will begin again in earnest....look forward to the KK and Comolli camps snapping at each other!

Under Brother Number Henry all conflict between his acolytes will no doubt have to be played out through a "managed mediation process" or other bullspeak.

Yeah, this thread is getting me in the mood for next season!

[Devil]

LFC have spent around 100 M which is a lot of money but so far it seems its coming from the owners investing and that's the biggest difference for me - were not selling to buy and were not adding more debt to the club. We need to be competing again, we need to be back in the CL and and as a club it vital. And if any of these buys helps us do that then that makes me one happy supporter.

Transfer prices - 20M on one player seems to be the standard for the top teams in the premier league now, we have to compete with City, Chelsea, Man U and and who have been doing that for a number of seasons. It just so happens we now have the money to go and get a few players and revamp the squad over two windows.

The funny thing I rarely see people mention the Suarez deal, because when it was initially heard to be 22 M people were saying that Liverpool paid way over the odds for him. The 22 M we spent on Suarez isn't talked about now because has been a hit on the pitch. And I wonder what he is worth now or in the next few years.

Anyway time will tell... The most important for me is finally LFC have identified targets, got them and paid to got them!!! that really is the biggest change of strategy I have seen at the club in years. I can only think back on targets we pulled out on because of the fee - we haggled on players for weeks only to let them be bought buy other clubs which left us looking at 3rd,4ht choice targets - C Ronaldo and Dani Alves were ones that still stick in my mind.

One thing is for sure no one can know if all these signings will be a success but its all looking positive and so happy to be discussing about how much we've spent on signings than discussing why we have made no signings.

'with the price of success so high, clubs have to speculate to accumulate'

[smokie36]

"Where's socialist StevieH?" ........... Where did that come from?!!

this thread s already back to its best and the season has'nt even started.

Wait until they lose a few on the trot...then the infighting will begin again in earnest....look forward to the KK and Comolli camps snapping at each other!

there arn't two caps really. They just think he's great because they don't know what else to think. What i do know is that if they do lose a few on the trot Damien will do a hacket job on Dalglish.

But relax smokie, i doubt they will lose a few on the trot. (In safe hands with Dalglish and i'm sure he'll keep that twit as far removed as possible) We might lose a few on the trot though, and i bet we don't get that long awaited top quality striker either.

We're not buying anyone. You're right there....but they will be split....and lose a few games on the bounce. We won't do that....lots of 0-0 draws I reckon.

[smokie36]

"Where's socialist StevieH?" ........... Where did that come from?!!

this thread s already back to its best and the season has'nt even started.

Wait until they lose a few on the trot...then the infighting will begin again in earnest....look forward to the KK and Comolli camps snapping at each other!

Under Brother Number Henry all conflict between his acolytes will no doubt have to be played out through a "managed mediation process" or other bullspeak.

Yeah, this thread is getting me in the mood for next season!

They've spent an awful lot of money on players who will only marginally improve their side. As for Carroll well...even all these months later I still laugh every time I think about it!

[carmine]

LFC have spent around 100 M which is a lot of money but so far it seems its coming from the owners investing and that's the biggest difference for me - were not selling to buy and were not adding more debt to the club. We need to be competing again, we need to be back in the CL and and as a club it vital. And if any of these buys helps us do that then that makes me one happy supporter.

Transfer prices - 20M on one player seems to be the standard for the top teams in the premier league now, we have to compete with City, Chelsea, Man U and and who have been doing that for a number of seasons. It just so happens we now have the money to go and get a few players and revamp the squad over two windows.

The funny thing I rarely see people mention the Suarez deal, because when it was initially heard to be 22 M people were saying that Liverpool paid way over the odds for him. The 22 M we spent on Suarez isn't talked about now because has been a hit on the pitch. And I wonder what he is worth now or in the next few years.

Anyway time will tell... The most important for me is finally LFC have identified targets, got them and paid to got them!!! that really is the biggest change of strategy I have seen at the club in years. I can only think back on targets we pulled out on because of the fee - we haggled on players for weeks only to let them be bought buy other clubs which left us looking at 3rd,4ht choice targets - C Ronaldo and Dani Alves were ones that still stick in my mind.

One thing is for sure no one can know if all these signings will be a success but its all looking positive and so happy to be discussing about how much we've spent on signings than discussing why we have made no signings.

'with the price of success so high, clubs have to speculate to accumulate'

Sorry dev but you're not hanging the Suarez on on us. I have said on numerous occasions, and i think its firmly acknowledged on this forum (maybe bar the Manyoo thread) that it was a great buy, possibly the buy of the season. Fantastic player. I am still gobsmacked and furious Redknapp decided not to go for him. The rest were decent buys but way overpriced, but now we move onto the buying policy and in my view its yet to be seen if its a good one or not but time will tell. Henendez was a great buy too but i have a funny feeling he's going to be found out a bit this coming season.

[carmine]

"Where's socialist StevieH?" ........... Where did that come from?!!

this thread s already back to its best and the season has'nt even started.

Wait until they lose a few on the trot...then the infighting will begin again in earnest....look forward to the KK and Comolli camps snapping at each other!

Under Brother Number Henry all conflict between his acolytes will no doubt have to be played out through a "managed mediation process" or other bullspeak.

Yeah, this thread is getting me in the mood for next season!

They've spent an awful lot of money on players who will only marginally improve their side. As for Carroll well...even all these months later I still laugh every time I think about it!

I don't rate him either but to be fair he's had a poor run of injuries. It was a gamble that might pay off and lets not forget the deal was done off the back of the Torres deal. My issue with Carroll isn't really the price tag, its simply that on what i've seen thus far i just don't rate him. Fully fit and an understanding with Suarez might prove me wrong.

[Devil]

LFC have spent around 100 M which is a lot of money but so far it seems its coming from the owners investing and that's the biggest difference for me - were not selling to buy and were not adding more debt to the club. We need to be competing again, we need to be back in the CL and and as a club it vital. And if any of these buys helps us do that then that makes me one happy supporter.

Transfer prices - 20M on one player seems to be the standard for the top teams in the premier league now, we have to compete with City, Chelsea, Man U and and who have been doing that for a number of seasons. It just so happens we now have the money to go and get a few players and revamp the squad over two windows.

The funny thing I rarely see people mention the Suarez deal, because when it was initially heard to be 22 M people were saying that Liverpool paid way over the odds for him. The 22 M we spent on Suarez isn't talked about now because has been a hit on the pitch. And I wonder what he is worth now or in the next few years.

Anyway time will tell... The most important for me is finally LFC have identified targets, got them and paid to got them!!! that really is the biggest change of strategy I have seen at the club in years. I can only think back on targets we pulled out on because of the fee - we haggled on players for weeks only to let them be bought buy other clubs which left us looking at 3rd,4ht choice targets - C Ronaldo and Dani Alves were ones that still stick in my mind.

One thing is for sure no one can know if all these signings will be a success but its all looking positive and so happy to be discussing about how much we've spent on signings than discussing why we have made no signings.

'with the price of success so high, clubs have to speculate to accumulate'

Sorry dev but you're not hanging the Suarez on on us. I have said on numerous occasions, and i think its firmly acknowledged on this forum (maybe bar the Manyoo thread) that it was a great buy, possibly the buy of the season. Fantastic player. I am still gobsmacked and furious Redknapp decided not to go for him. The rest were decent buys but way overpriced, but now we move onto the buying policy and in my view its yet to be seen if its a good one or not but time will tell. Henendez was a great buy too but i have a funny feeling he's going to be found out a bit this coming season.

Don't recall mentioning you in the post specifically Carmine??? but Suraez was part of the recent transfer surge by LFC so its a very good example as he had part of the season to show himself as a good or bad buy. Again if player comes good no one talks about the fee! the opposite is true of course.

Agree on the Henendez buy, hoping he flops this season

[Devil]

One down !

Reds complete Jovanovic sale

Liverpool have announced that Milan Jovanovic has completed his transfer to Belgian outfit RSC Anderlecht. The Serbia international made 18 appearances for the Reds last season and scored two goals.

[carmine]

LFC have spent around 100 M which is a lot of money but so far it seems its coming from the owners investing and that's the biggest difference for me - were not selling to buy and were not adding more debt to the club. We need to be competing again, we need to be back in the CL and and as a club it vital. And if any of these buys helps us do that then that makes me one happy supporter.

Transfer prices - 20M on one player seems to be the standard for the top teams in the premier league now, we have to compete with City, Chelsea, Man U and and who have been doing that for a number of seasons. It just so happens we now have the money to go and get a few players and revamp the squad over two windows.

The funny thing I rarely see people mention the Suarez deal, because when it was initially heard to be 22 M people were saying that Liverpool paid way over the odds for him. The 22 M we spent on Suarez isn't talked about now because has been a hit on the pitch. And I wonder what he is worth now or in the next few years.

Anyway time will tell... The most important for me is finally LFC have identified targets, got them and paid to got them!!! that really is the biggest change of strategy I have seen at the club in years. I can only think back on targets we pulled out on because of the fee - we haggled on players for weeks only to let them be bought buy other clubs which left us looking at 3rd,4ht choice targets - C Ronaldo and Dani Alves were ones that still stick in my mind.

One thing is for sure no one can know if all these signings will be a success but its all looking positive and so happy to be discussing about how much we've spent on signings than discussing why we have made no signings.

'with the price of success so high, clubs have to speculate to accumulate'

Sorry dev but you're not hanging the Suarez on on us. I have said on numerous occasions, and i think its firmly acknowledged on this forum (maybe bar the Manyoo thread) that it was a great buy, possibly the buy of the season. Fantastic player. I am still gobsmacked and furious Redknapp decided not to go for him. The rest were decent buys but way overpriced, but now we move onto the buying policy and in my view its yet to be seen if its a good one or not but time will tell. Henendez was a great buy too but i have a funny feeling he's going to be found out a bit this coming season.

Don't recall mentioning you in the post specifically Carmine??? but Suraez was part of the recent transfer surge by LFC so its a very good example as he had part of the season to show himself as a good or bad buy. Again if player comes good no one talks about the fee! the opposite is true of course.

Agree on the Henendez buy, hoping he flops this season

I was also referring to the fee which imho was a snip in what is a market gone potty. 23m for a 23 year old that was one of the stars of the world cup and prolific at Ajax. You'll make on him what you'll lose on Carroll if the lad does'nt work out.

[BangrakBob]

They've spent an awful lot of money on players who will only marginally improve their side.

Well from languishing in the bottom half of the table in January to surging back up the ladder was a bit more than marginal improvement and as far as the rest of the signings in this transfer window are concerned, that still remains to be seen

[Abrak]

I will give it one last try Sharecropper. You are expressing opinions, beliefs and criticizing Henry's. The problem you have is that Henry doesnt deal in opinions predictions and belief.

Henry is a trend investor. He believes that price movements have a tendency to trend. If you look at the price of gold say it went from 800 to 200 over 30 years and has subsequently gone to 1500. This presents a problem not for Henry but for value investors. They think that the price trends to value. And statistically that is not a good assumption to make because whatever the underlying value prices trend from overvalued to undervalued over long periods of time. The statement that players are 'overpriced' or 'overvalued' only has meaning to some extent if you are confident that prices will fall in the short term. And using 'valuation' to predict short term price movement is not consistent with data so Henry doesnt do it. And if overvaluation is not a useful indicator of price movement what use is it?

It is actually an incredibly bad excuse for 'not' doing business. So Henry assumes that rather like gold, players have no known inherent value and simply a price. And the price is precisely what you pay.

Now Henry is very value orientated and so he does have strong views on relative value. And he does think the market misprices relative value. Now given that there is no known inherent absolute value how does he know that the market misprices value. And the answer is he goes on the data available which is obviously not value but prices. If you look back over price data of Premiership values over the last 20 years the average price of a player virtually halves between the age of 29 and 30. Now Henry believes that is conclusive proof that the market misprices value even though he has absolutely no idea what value actually is.

Now the problem with people who claim they understand value of a football player is that I know and Henry knows you dont. To the extent you believe you understand the value parameters, so do I and I know you are making it all up. You can actually dream up an inherent value of gold because I cannot disprove it. But I know that every single player is worth zero at the end of his career.

Do you think that when players are 'undervalued' then Wenger is going to buy a whole load and wait for the price to go up. Because even if he does that it would be incredibly stupid because it might take a long time for the price to go up and it wont take a long time for the value of his players to go to zero.

All there is, is price and the concept of 'overvaluation' is ridiculous because it claims to know the 'value'. And we all know that nobody knows the value. Secondly 'overpriced' is a ridiculous concept because a transaction represents market prices. If the market is so sure that prices are going to fall why arent they selling at lower prices.

To a large extent I am a value investor but that is because I know in the long term there is a massively high correlation between value and price. The problem Wenger has is that for a value investor the longterm value of a player is zero.

And Sharecropper if you dont have the vaguest clue where you are well out of your league, you should realize that Henry bought Liverpool because he understand trends and valuation infinitely better than you. Because if players are ovcrvalued in the long term (which is actually not a heroic assumption to make) then the 'value' investment on a long term trend is that clubs are massively undervalued so you buy a club.

I dont expect you to be an investor but if you think that players are overvalued and you conclude you shouldnt buy a player, you end up without a football team because you cannot predict price and price and value only correlate in the long term and not the short term. If players are overvalued in the long term you buy a club. And I cant tell you how I think it is a mistaken belief for Wenger to believe in value when the long term value of a player is zero.

If you believe the market is smart consider this - if everybody in the world thought the market was going up you can guarantee it would go down. You dont even understand what trend he is investing in. If you tell me that someone I know is incredibly smart is dumb what should I conclude about you. All I would tell you is that you should assume that Henry knows precisely what he doesnt know and everything you know already.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Abrak

[Abrak]

There is one particular problem that I have with Carroll.

We actually know incredibly little about him. He was very good at Newcastle but it was not over a proven time period. He hasnt looked the same since he joined Liverpool but again we havent had a lot of time to assess his worth. My problem is slightly this. If Carroll is not great dont worry, we will make it up on Suarez. My concern is that Liverpool might try and build a team around him to try to get him to look great. I mean if Carroll isnt great then fine but I hope we havent spent 20m on Downing in order to make Carroll look great when he isnt being.

To be honest although it sort of appears that way it is such a rookie error that I cant really believe it.

[sharecropper]

And Sharecropper if you dont have the vaguest clue where you are well out of your league, you should realize that Henry bought Liverpool because he understand trends and valuation infinitely better than you.

I love this.

Trends perhaps, value I doubt.

I make a good living as a private investor,and have confidence in my own commercial and investment judgments based on the particular characteristics of the asset and the circumstances surrounding it, which can quickly and dramatically change. Same as the football transfer market.

You can't hold some pompous global investing philosophy if you want to maximise your investments, and I certainly don't believe you can in football, unless you have very deep pockets and a very small brain.

Although to worship someone's theoretical skills as you seem to, is a no-cost game anyway.

By the way, he IS in Liverpool to make money isn't he? I can't see how with your exposition of his investing philosophy.

That said, one thing he DID do well, with some collusion from inside I guess, was to get his hands very dirty in the nitty gritty of a corporate battle, and expertly put H&G on the rack by working with the banks to put a lot of pressure on H&G, and for the bank to then foreclose on the loan, so he actually used "old world" business methods to pick up Liverpool on the very cheap, and he must have had a lot of fun doing it.

I did admire him for his tactics, but that had nothing to do with this trend crap. That was a hawk-like assault on the prey, having already set it up, in a world I well understand, using guile and clever tactics, in a quickly-changing commercial battlefield.

Perish the thought that those smug Americans, who, don't forget, now have tons of fat on the Liverpool bone because of the way they acquired the club, don't cut and run at the first sign of trouble, deciding the "trend" is now, all of a sudden, the short-term taking of profits!

[Abrak]

And Sharecropper if you dont have the vaguest clue where you are well out of your league, you should realize that Henry bought Liverpool because he understand trends and valuation infinitely better than you.

I love this.

Trends perhaps, value I doubt.

A moderately successful private investor. Look I am going to offer you some free advice without charge. Look in order to determine a value of any sort you need to do some analysis. Value is based on analysis not a wild guess. How much value should I attach to your claim that you understand value better than Henry when you are simply making a heroic judgment of your own opinion.

I am sorry Sharecropper but you dont have the vaguest clue about value. And I will prove it.

1) I know that there is infinite data showing that in the short term there is little correlation between value and prices

2) In the long term the absolute exact value of player is guaranteed to be zero

3) So the absolute theoretical fundamental value of the value in your player is precisely Zero

Consider this if you bought a player that you believed was worth 200 at 100 knowing that the short term correlation of value and price is zero or less and the long term value is zero, would you be an utter moron? If you believe in buying undervalued long term investments on the basis that the long term value is zero you are in trouble.

And Sharecropper dont pretend you understand to know value when everyone else knows you dont. Are you next going to tell me you know the value of gold?

If you wish to prattle on about x person being worth relative to y anyone can do that but that is price not value and Henry is mythically mathetical models ahead of you on this. Seriously if you are gong to say that you understand the value of players you clearly dont understand value.

I hardly think you have to understand 'value' to realize you cant 'value' gold. And the same applies to a footballer. If you think you can value a footballer you dont understand value or you are genuinely confused between value and price. I am sure you could tell me what LFC might sell Carroll for x. But that is a price not a value.

Just to explain the difference between value and price in investment 101. I might value a stock on a discounted dividend flow model at 200 and the price might be 100. I would estimate that whatever the future price I would receive a discounted dividend flow of 200 and double my money and therefore that might be my valuation. And the price could be whatever because I doubled my money from the discounted dividend stream. I would pay 100 and receive over time 200.

Now you are going to be extremely hard placed to do a valuation model for a player. I am sure you can make one up. But as your terminal value has to be zero because it is precisely zero it aint going to be too good.

Anyway if you believe gold has a fundamental value or a football player then you dont really understand value. That is why I can guarantee that Henry understands value better than you. If someone tells you they can value gold they just dont understand value. The same with a player. Honestly just try and dream up a valuation model.

And really Sharecropper you shouldnt claim you know value when you simply express opinions. If you had the vaguest idea what value was you would know exactly what trend he is investing in. The historic model of the EPL is a 'cost based' one. He who spends the most wins. To the extent you dont believe me just assume that whoever (say City) spends another 50m the following year. This is a 'race to create losses'. The more you spend, the more you lose until you ultimately win the EPL. It is a spectacularly destructive value model for a massively successful industry. Now under FFP you show a degree of breakeven. What actually matters is that 'costs' that drive your success are determined by revenues and although revenues can be fudged they can only to a certain degree. Under the old model you could be the most successful by being the most 'stupid' and 'value destructive'. If City doesnt win the league this year with 100m of losses, they can pretty much guarantee they can win it with another 100m of spend and 200m of losses. So we play a game 'a race to create losses' that ends up with the most value destructive and therefore stupid person winning.

Over the last 30 years the EPL has been one of the most dramatically successful businesses and most tragically destructive value creation. Now under FFP it will of course be the player with the most spending who wins. But spending will be determined by revenues. And therefore you have a revenue based model. Theoretically of course the team with the most revenues wins and only needs the spending of the second highest revenue generator. So each player needs to reach break even and each player could theoretically be profitable. What is clear is that if you spend efficiently you will benefit. So under a revenue based model there has to be value creation. In amodel whereby the smartest wins it is surely value creative while any model whereby the most stupid person who loses the most amount of money wins has to be value destructive.

So rather like gold went from 800 to 200 over 30 years and back up to 1500 in 10 years, Henry basically sees this business turning round over the next 20 years. Now Henry uses 'value' in the opposite way I use 'prices'. If you knew about 'value' you would realize what a massively value creative business this could become over the next 20 years. If you think about it paying 25m to a club to put your name on their shirt is about as value creative as you can get as a concept. Obviously a sponsor who come along and build you a stadium for free which would be a ridiculous value creation concept but is perfectly possible. And the neat thing is that the value creation will flow to the top. By the way you cannot start valuing value creation like that because it is infinite.

But if you understand value at least you can be amused. He who loses the most wins as a profit model. Combined with people paying huge amounts of money for you to do absolutely nothing apart from put their name on your shirt or the honor of supplying your fans with clothes which is money for nothing (which is the very definition of value creation.) So Man City might win the title by losing 100m this year and not actually realize that they have lost 100m and won a pot. But under a cost based industry you simply 'race to create losses'. So the biggest loser wins. That is probably one of the most stupid business models you could create. Under FFP at least your performance will be determined by your efficiency so that the smarter you are the better you do. Henry doesnt believe in timing value rather like I dont believe in timing price. He is often 3 years too early but he doesnt care. He knows this could be a US$50bn industry in 20 years time just like I do.

Why is Benedetto getting into Roma? Can you imagine 30 years ago if you had predicted how spectacularly successful EPL would have been, how you would have thought that Liverpool would be one of the best investments in the world. And 30 years later you can buy it for 300m debt free on the basis that everyone is trying to bankrupt each other. Anyway you know value better than Henry so I suspect you think he is being incredibly stupid. So that is his trend crap. And whether you know it or not his margin for error is very high.

[sharecropper]

Look I am going to offer you some free advice without charge.

Erm, phew. That saves me 50 Baht.

Value is based on analysis not a wild guess.

Hang on . I thought BN Henry was all about trend not a cold analysis of market value? How can you "analyise" that Caroll is worth 35 million quid? Surely a flaw in his model as applied to footy?

I am sorry Sharecropper but you dont have the vaguest clue about value. And I will prove it.

Looking forward to that counter of a subjective view, by another one, after such a resoundingly patronising platitude.

And Sharecropper dont pretend you understand to know value when everyone else knows you dont.

The fatuous appeal to the gallery. I love it. The last refuge of the bamboozled.

Are you next going to tell me you know the value of gold?

No. But I will tell you this. I know the value of it but I would NEVER invest in it as I think I can get better returns elsewhere.

and Henry is mythically mathetical models ahead of you on this.

Of course he is. He’s a yank, who controls your club, with pocketfuls of money and a glib expression until he needs to get nasty. What’s so mythical in that?

You might consider that you might have Stockholm Syndrome, as you all had with Rafa.

And I am not sure of the use of “mythical” here, it could come back to haunt you.

And, with respect, you don’t know my formidable powers of mathematics.

Seriously if you are gong to say that you understand the value of players you clearly dont understand value.

You don’t understand what I don’t understand. I am saying NO-ONE can understand the value of players, but it would be advisable not to pay stupid money for them. Liverpool skewered the transfer market this close season, with massive repercussions for the Premier league because of Henry’s baked bean economics.

If you think you can value a footballer you dont understand value or you are genuinely confused between value and price.

Sorry, now you are way out there. If you were reporting to me as a footy team chairman with that comment, clutching a load of expensive, useless signings, what do you think I’d say?

Of course people value footballers. It is what teams would pay (the price) to have them play for them. There has to be a serious correlation between value and price otherwise these listed companies would be in deep shit with their shareholders, where they are listed.

In the case of Man City they don’t seem to care, and you are not far behind them as Premiership cash-splashers.

I am sure you could tell me what LFC might sell Carroll for x. But that is a price not a value.

No it’s a price based on his perceived value. And I’d go for a generous 20 million quid before he (mis)kicks a ball.

Anyway if you believe gold has a fundamental value or a football player then you dont really understand value. That is why I can guarantee that Henry understands value better than you. If someone tells you they can value gold they just dont understand value. The same with a player. Honestly just try and dream up a valuation model.

Ouch. I just hope all Liverpool fans don’t think like you (well, I know they don’t, from personal experience). I am missing the more neaderthal, unthinking ones right now. Like....who.

And really Sharecropper you shouldnt claim you know value when you simply express opinions.

Why not? Surely the whole Brother Number Henry model of value (or is it trend, I can’t keep up) investment is his OPINION based on analysis. And it is YOUR opinion of his investment philosophy that keeps this discussion going?

If you had the vaguest idea what value was you would know exactly what trend he is investing in.

That’s just silly and pejorative. And as a rebuttal, I offer you Carthorse Carroll, whose “value’ or “trend”, at 35 million quid is just silly, unless you’re a Liverpool fan.

And no, short of a Liverpool Fan brain transplant I am happy keeping my cynicism, and laughing at these extraordinary attempts to justify your overspend in the transfer market.

By the end of your erudite post, I actually started to wonder whether you are in some way linked to FSG or you are Brother Number Henry himself?

[BIGTOE3]

I used to like this thread when the likes of Scousemouse used to talk some sense.

Hope you all have a good season.

BT

[sharecropper]

ON the pitch, you lot must have been happy with yesterday's game, although I think defenders will be focussing on Carroll's short fuse in the coming season:

From The Guardian:

Andy Carroll off to flier as Liverpool beat Valencia in fiery friendly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/06/liverpool-valencia-andy-carroll

[Devil]

Liverpool v Valcenia

Carroll - That's the leanest and fittest I have seen him in a Red shirt. I think the hard work in Preseason might pay off over the coming weeks. He got his goal which was well earned and fought for, that will boost his confidence. He just seemed to have that extra yard of pace and reaction and that makes a world of difference. He looks better playing with a second striker in my opinion.

Downing - I wasn't that excited when I heard we were in for him but thought he could give us options. However I really think this might prove to be the pick of the bunch. He gives us that badly need of extra pace, width, trickery and final delivery in to the box. He is the type of player that can stretch the opposition. I think Kenny's got a very clear game plan here when he went for Downing.

Spearing - cant believe this lad, I think he may have made the case to be started against Sunderland ahead of the new signings of Henderson and Adam. He seems to have carried on his form as he did the end of last season, just feel he might be molded into a DM similar to how Masch was used for away games. One thing is for sure we now have strength in depth and options in midfield and I believe that's were most games will be won for us.

[Jimjim]

So here's our squad of 26 players, currently. Surely even if Degen and El Zhar are still around they won't be considered for the squad if we get some new arrivals. That would be 24, though, so let's assume we get a new left back and even a new central defender, we'd still have 26! Surely we will sell or send on loan from among Degen, El Zhar, Jones and Insua.

Sadly, ha ha I could see us keeping Poulsen just to make up squad numbers but I doubt he'll play much and could see him moving on as well. And it still seems up in the air but I think Aqualani or Meireles could leave as well. Also Ngog, I suppose but if he left, would be nice to get another attacker into the club, either a loan experienced striker or a cheaper addition to the squad.

Anyway, will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

foreign

Daniel Agger

Fabio Aurelio

Dirk Kuyt

Sotirios Kyrgiakos

Lucas Leiva

Raul Meireles

Christian Poulsen

Pepe Reina

Maxi Rodriguez

Martin Skrtel

Luis Suarez

David Ngog

Alberto Aqualani

Charlie Adam

Alexander Doni

Philipp Degen

El Zhar

homegrown

Jamie Carragher

Joe Cole

Steven Gerrard

Glen Johnson

Brad Jones

Jay Spearing

Andrew Carroll

Stewart Downing

Emiliano Insua

Here's one blog's take on the squad, though they list Jovanovic who has now left.

http://redtintedglasses.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/201112-season-preview-liverpool-fc-and-the-25-man-squad-dilemma/

[Jimjim]

I used to like this thread when the likes of Scousemouse used to talk some sense.

Hope you all have a good season.

BT

I used to like this thread when the majority of posters were actually Liverpool fans...

[sharecropper]

I used to like this thread when the likes of Scousemouse used to talk some sense.

Hope you all have a good season.

BT

I used to like this thread when the majority of posters were actually Liverpool fans...

Dying breed now, mate, what with all the in-fighting.

They're all Man U fans now.

But you should be flattered that we still all flock to worship at the Univeristy of Football thread.