Liverpool only 2 million??

we havent really spent much this summer and i know liverpools owners arnt throwing in the cash but notts county got 1 million and there league 2 (yes i know notts county have been taken over)

Lucky to have £2M ! Bet Rafa hasn't got that irl

Its pretty realistic actually, the fact is "your" owners haven't got five quid of actual cash between them its all a load of assets and debts.

Didnt they spend 18mil on Glen Johnson and 20Mil on Aqualini plus someone else i think thats a fair amount tbh

Remember that takes into account the money that has been already spent in the summer. You can make some money by selling some fringe players, but its realistic as Liverpool don't exactly have alot of money right now.

Thats after selling Alonso for 30...

Remember that takes into account the money that has been already spent in the summer. You can make some money by selling some fringe players, but its realistic as Liverpool don't exactly have alot of money right now.

most the team then

while not exactly familar with liverpool finances isn't there the matter of the 300m debt the club has thats weighing down the club thus the low amount to spend in the game

we havent really spent much this summer and i know liverpools owners arnt throwing in the cash but notts county got 1 million and there league 2 (yes i know notts county have been taken over)

Haven't spent much? The two main transfers of the summer almost add up to £40million.

Thats after selling Alonso for 30...

Annual budget of £20million, plus £30milllion from Alonso sale gives you £50million, most of which went on the two players mentioned above.

I am a Liverpool fan and think it's realistic.

They aint got no money because the never win owt. Rafas European Cup win was the biggest cover up of a manager ever.

It was well publicised towards the end of the transfer window that Benitez had somewhere in the region of £2m left to spend.

Hence the purchase of the Greek lad at 1.5m despite being interested in young Turner who went from Hull to Sunderland. Even he was out of Rafa's reach.

while not exactly familar with liverpool finances isn't there the matter of the 300m debt the club has thats weighing down the club thus the low amount to spend in the game

Man Utd get plent, even with their 700 million pounds of debt

I don't think that's unrealistic (despite the fact that Rafa made money rather than spending this window). Although there was a comment from one of the owners recently that said they would allow Rafa to spend more but he chose not to, I tend not to believe it myself.

Man Utd get plent, even with their 700 million pounds of debt

Being a liverpool fan i still think thats realistic, they sold ronaldo for 80 million pounds and still have most of that to spend.

How much do you think they should have? That's totally realistic.

It's certainly realistic, makes it more of a challenge having to do a bit of wheeling and dealing. I suspect in the 2nd season we'll get a decent budget.

well I think this is a realistic amount. I think winning competitions will be the only way to have a decent amount to spend in the second season. I also add it must be hard to set the chairmans status as the club is for sale and then it isnt!!

Didnt they spend 18mil on Glen Johnson and 20Mil on Aqualini plus someone else i think thats a fair amount tbh

Portsmouth owed Liverpool £7M, so that was subtracted from Johnson's price. That basically means that Alonso's sale covered both Aquilani (~£17M) and Johnson (~£10.5M).

Liverpool spent a bit under £40M last summer, and recouped about the same in sales so Rafa didn't actually use any other money for transfers. In that light, Gillett's comment about Rafa having more money to spend would probably be correct. We'll see what happens come January.

__________________________________

K***s on epäoikeudenmukainen kusipää!

Wrong, Johnson in effect cost Liverpool £18m - why else would Liverpool waive the remaining Crouch fee? For niceness? Liverpool were always going to get the remaining £7m if they hadn't signed Johnson. The remaining £7m would have been factored into the current finances of Liverpool, so it's more like "no, we don't have £7m right now but we will in a year, so we can give you some money to spend because we will get it anyway, but it will be less than £7m".

LIverpool had no further money to spend in the transfer window only what was brought in through sales. this is why the crouch money was used for johnson and the alonso/arbeloa sales covered Aqua/Johnson/Krygarios, Rafa would of sold Voronin but wasn;t assured he would get the money raised to spend on anyone else and had to keep him. the refinancing deal meant the owners changed their promise of 20m for transfers to 20m for transfer and any contract renewals which we had done at the end of the season and it took up nearly all the funds.

Wrong, Johnson in effect cost Liverpool £18m - why else would Liverpool waive the remaining Crouch fee? For niceness? Liverpool were always going to get the remaining £7m if they hadn't signed Johnson. The remaining £7m would have been factored into the current finances of Liverpool, so it's more like "no, we don't have £7m right now but we will in a year, so we can give you some money to spend because we will get it anyway, but it will be less than £7m".

You're both right and wrong. Portsmouth agreed to sell Johnson to Liverpool for around £17-18M, but only in a structured deal that would clear their debt from the Crouch transfer. So in actual money, Liverpool only had to pay between 10 and 11 million while writing down the £7M debt as "lost".

__________________________________

K***s on epäoikeudenmukainen kusipää!

No, Liverpool did have an "asset" worth £7m and that was in the form of a future set of payments from Portsmouth - this asset was renegotiated as part of the Johnson deal.

Because it is still an "asset", Liverpool and Portsmouth would have assumed this structured set of payments would have continued and therefore able to prepare for it.

The £10-11m payment may not even be in liquid cash itself.

What more likely happened is that the owners would have given Rafa around £5m out of the £7m remaining because a) they would have received £7m anyway and b) it's not like Liverpool become £7m richer the moment the structured deal ends. From a structured deal point of view, £7m may not even be worth factoring in and Rafa may have simply gone £7m short with the knowledge that it would be recuperated in the future.

In other words, what if the £7m was part of Rafa's budget in the first place? Not an unrealistic scenario. Liverpool simply "lost" the potential to receive £7m but converted it into an immediate monetary value as an "addon" to the Johnson transfer.

Liverpool is so broke atm. £2mill available transfer funds sound right to me.

I am playing Liverpool in the demo and had to sell 2 players to get 1 in and now have a budget of 6 million for the next window which I can't use as only playing the demo but Liverpool really only have a small squad as the reserve players are not much cope really and the best were sent out on loan to up their stats by playing regular first team football hence the same group of players play nearly every match and injuries ensure you may have to play players out of postion.

By the way I finished the demo in 3rd postion,still 6 points behind man utd.

You always have to keep in mind that the transfer budget of any club in the first season is a figure AFTER they have spent their entire budgets irl. With very few exceptions (ManU maybe this year) all clubs do spend their entire budgets, so that it's realistic if the clubs do have have extensive budgets in the first year on FM. Maybe having no budget at all would be even more realistic, but of course less fun.

The thread title should actually read "Where did Liverpool get £2M from!???"

Don't you know we are skint?

it was the clubs finance and the owners couldn't provide the manager with alot of transfer money , Liverpool is not a very rich club and they are bankrupted ... its announced that Liverpool is the poorest club out of the top 4 and they are hitting the debt harder then the rest.

Man Utd get plent, even with their 700 million pounds of debt

That's because although the club has the 700 million pound debt Man Utd still make huge profits every year whilst Liverpool don't

Seems fair considering we couldn't afford 8m for a CB and got the Greek instead.

We're meant to have a 12m injection in January though.

A lot of Liverpools transfer budget went into signing new contracts this summer for key players like Gerrard, Torres, Kuyt and two others I think. As a result of the debt that Hicks and Gillet have plunged the club into, Liverpool are having to pay 30 Million interest payments annually to the bank which would of normally have been used for the transfer budget.

That's because although the club has the 700 million pound debt Man Utd still make huge profits every year whilst Liverpool don't

Incorrect, Man Utd make large gross profits every year. However, the actual net profit is much lower and much of the net profit is actually put back into reducing the debt's principle.

Incorrect, Man Utd make large gross profits every year. However, the actual net profit is much lower and much of the net profit is actually put back into reducing the debt's principle.

Well we still have more money than them at the end of the day and we continue to pay of the debt so it's all good. Where as Liverpool will hopefully get worse and be the next Leeds - God that would be amazing !!

Didnt they spend 18mil on Glen Johnson and 20Mil on Aqualini plus someone else i think thats a fair amount tbh

Thats right. After we signed Aqualini, Rafa was told he only had £1.5 million to spend left. He signed Sotirios Kyrgiakos for exactly £1.5million, leaving him without even a penny left to spend.

Game is spot on, if being a little kind really. It's a sad state to be in

£2m is about right in my view as they have ran out of transfer funds.

Personally I would like to take over a club at the END of the season BEFORE any transfer so I can spend the budget not the previous manager.

well our 2 main buys were johnson 18 million and aquilani

we sold arbeloa for johnson and apparently was still owed money by pompey for crouch, sold alonso for 30 million, i think we should have a little more especially when you sell a player you only get 50% of the transfer money

think i may have to go into the editor and edit those 2 the smeg out of anfield. nobody likes them.

This was in the news when Rafa said he would have no money to spend during the transfer window after he signed Johnson. The pre-tense of signing Aquillani was that Alonso was being sold. Its been Widely reported that Liverpool have no money to spend in January now IRL unless they sell someone.

By the way i was Liverpool on the demo and sold Riera for £9.5m, Babel for £13.75m and Dossena for £6m. Theres plenty of deadwood in the squad to make some quick cash. This is totally realistic. Oh and dont be looking around saying "If Notts Co have £1m then we should have more". Thats not how football works mate. Just look at the Mighty Birmingham City and thier £40m January transfer kitty!

This was in the news when Rafa said he would have no money to spend during the transfer window after he signed Johnson. The pre-tense of signing Aquillani was that Alonso was being sold. Its been Widely reported that Liverpool have no money to spend in January now IRL unless they sell someone.

By the way i was Liverpool on the demo and sold Riera for £9.5m, Babel for £13.75m and Dossena for £6m. Theres plenty of deadwood in the squad to make some quick cash. This is totally realistic. Oh and dont be looking around saying "If Notts Co have £1m then we should have more". Thats not how football works mate. Just look at the Mighty Birmingham City and thier £40m January transfer kitty!

Good lord, post this in the bugs forum!

I got £7M for Dossena from Man City, probably could have gotten more, but that was the price I asked for when I offered him to other clubs. Degen went for ~£3M.

__________________________________

K***s on epäoikeudenmukainen kusipää!

Well we still have more money than them at the end of the day and we continue to pay of the debt so it's all good. Where as Liverpool will hopefully get worse and be the next Leeds - God that would be amazing !!

I'm a Liverpool fan and I wouldn't hope for Man Utd or any other team going the Leeds path. Btw. you cant compare Liverpool's finance problems with Leeds. Leeds overspend them self for many years and were reliant on revenues coming in from the CL. One year without CL and they were properly ****ed.

Michael Osmann

and Liverpool arent reliant on CL money? i some how think they are along with all of the big four

2 million couldn't buy you Joey Barton and that says alot

2 million couldn't buy you Joey Barton and that says alot

No but i'm sure he'd appreciate the bail money!

Michael Osmann

and Liverpool arent reliant on CL money? i some how think they are along with all of the big four

Yes they are... but they (the big 4) wont go the Leeds path without a CL. The Problem with Leeds was - that they had taken out large loans against the prospect of the share of the TV rights and sponsorship revenues that come with CL-qualification. And if I remember correctly their wage budget was massive.

Michael Osmann

it would hurt them if they didnt qualify what is the CL worth is it around £30m?

Michael Osmann

it would hurt them if they didnt qualify what is the CL worth is it around £30m?

He's not denying that, just stating that it would not have a similar effect to what it did to Leeds. The Leeds situation is the prime example of how a club should not be run. Leeds were spending massive amounts of money on average players and taking out loans to get them based entirely on the assumption that the would qualify for the Champions League. The players that they were signing were offered huge amounts of money, much more then they would be able to demand at any other club. Then they failed to qualify for the Champions League and it all went wrong. Players were sold for much less then they signed for just to get them off the wage bill, but they ended up paying a percentage of the players wages still because the clubs the players moved to would stump up the over the odds, so whilst they had the player off their hands, they were still paying his wages. Things spiralled out of control and the club was ruined. Peter Ridsdale showed perfectly how not to run a football club.

This is not happening at Liverpool though. We may not be in a particullarly strong financial position, but we are in a stable one. Whilst the holding company made a loss, the club itself actually made a net profit last year. Whilst failure to qualify would cause us problems, and certainly massively shrink our transfer budget, as it would with all of the big four, it's very unlikely that things would spiral out of control as they did at Leeds.

it's ok, I'm going to make Liverpool have a massive transfer kitty of 500 million at the start of the game, and also a bank balance of 1.5 billion and a wage allowance of 3 million

I'm a Liverpool fan and I wouldn't hope for Man Utd or any other team going the Leeds path. Btw. you cant compare Liverpool's finance problems with Leeds. Leeds overspend them self for many years and were reliant on revenues coming in from the CL. One year without CL and they were properly ****ed.

Nice to see you feel that way. Unfortuantley I truly despise Liverpool and would love to see them go into ruin !