06 Aug 2021 20:10:48
Wondering why is it Liverpool have no funds to buy players?
They have sold very well in the last few years and have only made one significant signing this summer with none the previous year.

{Ed002's Note - Clearly you don't understand the finances. There is no big pot that transfer money goes in.}

1.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 20:46:22
I must have imagined Liverpool signing Tsimikas, Thiago and Jota last summer.

2.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 21:02:50
Thiago was free, tsimikas was very cheap in terms of a transfer fee and yeah fair enough Jota came in for a large fee but with winning the league and the champions league before it just seems strange that there appears to be a lack of funds available.
As for ed002 I don’t pretend to know how it works, more asking the question so thanks for your lovely insight.

{Ed002's Note - Thiago wasn’t free - just Liverpool haven’t paid for him yet.}

3.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 21:50:26
Nearly all players had new contracts and also decrease in gates revenues.

4.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 21:52:18
Ed002 we are not the only ones that don’t understand finances Just seen Pep say Grealish only cost city £40m because they sold £60m worth of players over the last year. Then sky sports showed they had sold just over £100m worth of players but signed close to £150m worth of players in the same time maths can’t be Peps strong point.

{Ed002's Note - I don’t know what he has said but they have sold and loaned players to get a decent amount of money coming in. The loan d=fees soon build up.}

5.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 22:14:28
He said they have brought in £60m so grealish only cost £40m. He sounded like a fan on here talking about money.

{Ed002's Note - Take it to the Manchester City page.}

6.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 22:20:48
I must admit, I really struggle with the finance aspect with respect to available transfer fees. It appears that none of; success in competitions, good net transfer fees, stadium attendance, sponsorship deals, or having rich owners makes any difference as to how much a club can spend in the transfer market. There must be other factors, as I have no doubt that Liverpool genuinely have no money to spend, There’s absolutely nothing to gain for the editors of this site to claim that the club don’t have money to spend on transfers if they did. Are the owners taking money out of the club to pay investors Ed002? Or are there costs that Liverpool have that other clubs don’t have? Or is it something completely different? Such as the investment in the stadium. I’m not trying to understand the tiny detail of the finances, but would really appreciate any information that you could provide as to why Liverpool are in the situation of seemingly having much less to spend than other ‘big’ clubs in the transfer market. This is not a dig at the club, the eds, other posters, or anyone else, I’m just genuinely interested. I’m fully behind the team irrespective of transfers.

{Ed002's Note - You need to consider the outgoings - running the club, paying wages, paying agents, and a whole bunch of other stuff, not least the pandemic and the impact on the game.}

7.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 22:20:50
In fairness we need Carol Vorderman to work out how sides buy players. Chelsea are still signing players on the Hazard money and after buying Lukaku will still have 97 million off it for Jan window 👀🤣.

{Ed002's Note - Chelsea only spent what they earned through sales last summer. They have also already raised a very decent amount this summer with sales and loans.}

8.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 22:27:46
Ed002 I was only joking mate. Chelsea fair play to them always seem to do well with their sales.

{Ed002's Note - There is a clear business model.}

9.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 23:08:58
Absolutely fair point ed002, I just don’t understand why those factors seem to affect Liverpool more than other clubs. Is there anything specific to Liverpool why they are impacted more than others? Many thanks.

{Ed002's Note - The hand to mouth nature of the business relaying on expected income.}

10.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 23:11:56
Ah so this is why we don’t discuss finances 🤣.

11.) 06 Aug 2021
06 Aug 2021 23:20:56
Ed002 I think Chelsea invested a lot of money before FFP and Roman did pump loads into the club and that investment has lasted all that time with loads of younger players signed back then. You sometimes forget about some of the players Chelsea have out on loan I see the Spurs game the other night and winger that was on loan at Newcastle was playing total forget all about him. And Chelsea seem to such quality depth if they did sell all the loan players they would have one hell of a transfer kitty.

{Ed002's Note - They have put a lot of money in to the academy and then planned a way forward using loans but realistically only perhaps two or three make the route through to the first team each year. It is better than most clubs and the income covers the cost but they would like to up it a little. The planning is the critical thing and what sets them apart from the likes of Manchester United. Manchester City have an approach but they have the advantage of the City Football Group clubs to play with.}

12.) 07 Aug 2021
07 Aug 2021 07:58:26
Thiago on a free? Yikes, I must have slept thru the part where Thiago cost 20m and Bayern agreed to our structured payments. As for Chelsea, they are a well run club now and fair play to them BUT I think a lot of that has to do with the loads of money having been ploughed into the club in the first several years that provided the financial base to make the developments they have made to become the well run club they are now which is fine. Their current model is the one we should be looking to emulate, IMO.

13.) 08 Aug 2021
07 Aug 2021 08:38:08
We are not owned by a country or a very questionable Russian. We operate on a totally different playing field. But my God it’s going to be so sweet when we win number 20. We have loads in our favour this year.