The Liverpool Thread
- Thread starter Steve*
- Start date
- Replies 44K
- Views 3M
Cheeky cheeky, to be fair I can never tell sarcasm over the net
To be honest, I would just take 90% of what Lee says to be sarcasm. Wait, no. 100%.
As Alcaraz said, he says it quite often in press interviewed when asked about the 7 years without silverware and the like.
TBF, their sponsorship problems are their own fault.. Love how they get 1/5 the sponsorship we get despite their consistent top 4 finishes. (;
Anyway, my point is clubs like Arsenal should look to win competitions, settling for fourth shows a lack of ambition and is generally why players like Nasri [and probably RVP soon] want to leave.. Just my opinion.
Of course, financially domestic cup runs mean nothing.. And nor do I rate them above European football, but I do rate winning competitions above just being in a comfortable position.
Also, Arsenal have the ability to go out and purchase players, making out they are skint is silly. Instead of buying players Wenger just give ridiculous contracts to squad players. Their wage bill really is insane.
Last edited:
Actually he sets 4th as a minimum target, much like your owners did. I take it by not meeting that, you club isnt ambitious?
Who the **** says they dont look to win competitions? Finishing 3rd/4th and getting knocked out in the knock out stages of the CL doesn't mean they aren't challenging. It merely means they haven't been able to win, which is what Wenger says. He mentions it is because he gets grilled when Arsenal get knocked out, and he is quite right to, 14 years of CL is outstanding. They aren't skint, but they also don't have massive purchasing power.
As for this part, are you honestly saying you'd rather win cups as a mid table side (which is what liverpool are right now)
than challenge while still maintain elite football? I'd say you are the one showing a lack of ambition. I'd rather be up against European elite (whatever the result) than the being in the final of the Carling Cup.
Come this summer both sides will be looking for players. One side is better placed to attract higher calibre players that the other, and that side isnt Liverpool.
What Arsenal need to is take that step up again, which is no mean feat considering the strength of power in Manchester. And yet they are already showing that ambition you say they lack by getting Poldolski already. And they wage bill isn't that high, it just has no heirachy, there is a difference.
Are there thing he could be doing better? No doubt. But he is doing an excellent, job that is showing amibition in the long term. And next season, as a United fan its the challenge from them i'm more concerned about, as opposed to Liverpools.
Last edited:
Only the first paragraph was a response to what you said. The rest was just a mini-rant based on some things I've seen other people say. So yeah, stop thinking everything is about you.
Arsenal's position was dictated by their new build stadium. The numbers meant they had to take a hit on income from sponsorships to get money up front so they could afford to build the thing. Their model depends on CL football. No CL football and they're in quite a bit of trouble (not going bust kind of trouble but a tight budget getting exceptionally stretched). Big fear for Arsenal fans should be what happens when they get to happyhappy land and have money to spend. The old guard shareholders have been replaced by bright new things.
Expect to get sight of our accounts today as they've gone to journos now. Without CL football, we're only £1m down on where we were with it. Loss mainly comes from the 'exceptionals' such as writing off the Hicks Dome costs and paying off Hodgson and Purslow. Need to see the numbers, and what's happening up the chain, but it's indicating that things are returning to normality again. Even better, if we can get CL football without increasing costs, club is capable of turning a very decent profit. Warrior deal to go on top of that too. Interesting stuff. (Just a quick edit, but some time ago I said the club was capable of turning a profit of £40m under different owners. With CL football and the Warrior deal and no 'exceptionals', there would be a £40m profit there...).
Expect to get sight of our accounts today as they've gone to journos now. Without CL football, we're only £1m down on where we were with it. Loss mainly comes from the 'exceptionals' such as writing off the Hicks Dome costs and paying off Hodgson and Purslow. Need to see the numbers, and what's happening up the chain, but it's indicating that things are returning to normality again. Even better, if we can get CL football without increasing costs, club is capable of turning a very decent profit. Warrior deal to go on top of that too. Interesting stuff. (Just a quick edit, but some time ago I said the club was capable of turning a profit of £40m under different owners. With CL football and the Warrior deal and no 'exceptionals', there would be a £40m profit there...).
Last edited:
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Will someone make a cup final thread please.
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
FA are putting free plastic flags on every seat, and from what I can gather, people are going around and are going to bin them 
pokiuki123
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 796
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
FA are putting free plastic flags on every seat, and from what I can gather, people are going around and are going to bin them
Isn't that what Chelsea do at Stamford Bridge to get 'atmosphere'?
the andersred blog: The scale of Fenway's challenge at Liverpool becomes clear
The scale of Fenway's challenge at Liverpool becomes clear
Normal health warning: if you don't think a United supporter can impartially analyse Liverpool Football Club's finances don't read on.
Liverpool are a club in transition on and off the pitch. The financial results published overnight show just how great is the challenge facing Fenway Sports Group ("FSG"). We can now see that the American owners spent £261m acquiring and refinancing Liverpool. Of this figure only £30m has actually flowed into the club, the rest was spent on the purchase itself.
I think Liverpool will turn the corner financially, the commercial opportunity is still there and there is clearly the scope to occupy a far larger/more profitable ground. The challenge is getting far more sporting success out of a very expensive squad of players, and that isn't really down to money at all....
FSG's ownership structure
The primary operating company of Liverpool Football Club is "The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited" which the the main entity I will focus on. Since 15th October 2010, 100% of this operating company has been owned by a new vehicle "UKSV Holdings Company Limited". UKSV is in turn owned by NESV I LLC, a US company also (and commonly) known as "Fenway Sports Group". The accounts of UKSV only run from 1st October when it was established to 31st July 2011. The accounts of the operating business, which I'll refer to as "Liverpool" or "the club" for ease, run for the year to 31st July 2011 (i.e. last season).
Ian Ayre's spin
Before the club's accounts were available at Companies House, Managing Director Ian Ayre gave a lengthy interview to the club's website and to the Liverpool Echo. Without making the accounts available, Ayre threw around various numbers and in particular blamed the £50m pre-tax loss on a write-off of work on the abandoned stadium plans. Whilst the write-off had a big impact, he was being pretty disingenuous by not mentioning a pretty exceptional profit (£43.3m) on the sales of Fernando Torres and Javier Mascherano. This profit largely offset the stadium write-off (£49.2m) and that meant that the underlying results were very poor.
Ayre is not alone in spinning his club's financial figures before they come out (hello Chelsea) or not being straight with his supporters (hello United and many, many others), but it is still pretty poor. The club is in transition and there is surely no need for such spin.
Revenues and costs
Football clubs are simple businesses. There are three revenue streams (matchday receipts, media income and commercial deals) and two main operating costs (wages and the costs of operating the club day to day). The difference between these numbers is "EBITDA" (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation), effectively cash profits before any investment or the servicing of debts. After EBITDA come depreciation of the stadium, training ground etc, "amortisation" which is how transfers are accounted for, then interest and (rarely in football) corporation tax.
Liverpool's results for 2010/11 show what happens when costs run ahead of revenues; profits collapse. This is of course the curse of football finance. Success brings income so clubs invest in player wages in the pursuit of this success. Fail to do well on the pitch and the costs are still there but not the income.
Liverpool's revenue was effectively flat last season (down 0.5%). Matchday income fell 4.6% despite the same number of home games, reflecting a small fall in average attendances (40,224 vs. 41,940) more than offsetting ticket prices rises and must imply a fall of in corporate hospitality too. Media income was down 18% as the club failed to qualify for the Champions League (losing £25m of income). This was partly offset by £5m of Europa League income and the £7m increase in PL TV money from overseas rights. Commercial revenue was the star area with the Standard Chartered deal driving it up £15m or 25%. The Warrior kit deal will not impact the accounts until 2012/13.
Although revenues were down a fraction, there was significant cost growth as the club spent heavily in an attempt to break back into the top 4. Pre-exceptional staff costs rose a very punchy 12.7% year-on-year. This wage growth is more down to contract increases than transfers in my opinion. Although the club signed Cole, Poulsen, Konchesky, Meireles etc, Mascherano, Riera and Benayoun all departed and the January flurry of transfers will not have impacted the full year numbers significantly.
Total operating costs (pre-exceptionals) rose 9.3%, driving EBITDA before players sales down by 63% to only £9.8m, a margin of 5.3%. The graph below shows how the club's EBITDA has fallen very sharply since 2009 revenue despite growing slightly. Liverpool are overspending.
The issue of rampant wage inflation is not of course unique to Liverpool. The graph below shows that Arsenal, Everton, United and City all saw wages rise faster than turnover last season. The problem for Liverpool is however more acute than at other clubs, fundamentally because Liverpool are operating a squad with a Champions League cost base without Champions League income.
Liverpool's wage bill is quite competitive in Premier League terms, fourth behind City, Chelsea and United but the dreaded wages/turnover ratio is rising sharply (up to 70% from 62%). That puts Liverpool much closer to Chelsea (76%) than Arsenal or Everton (55% and 56% respectively).
Amortisation and depreciation
Amortisation is the method by which transfer spending is recognised in the profit and loss account. It reflects the level of transfer spending a club does, spread out over the life of player contracts. Importantly it forms part of the UEFA's FFP calculation. At Liverpool the amortisation charge has been quite high, reflecting steady transfer spending under Benitez and Hodgson. The charge fell from £40m to £36m in 2010/11.
Depreciation (on Anfield and Melwood) was up slightly at £2.9m (vs. £2.1m).
Exceptionals, player sales and interest
Exceptional costs totaled £58.99m in 2010/11. Of this, £49.2m was a write-off of capitalised costs relating to the abandoned stadium project. It is important to stress that this is not a cash cost in 2010/11, the money had already been spent in previous years. Most of the balance of the exceptional charges relate to getting rid of Roy Hodgson. The club spent £8.4m changing managers last season compared to £7.8m getting rid of Benitez the year before.
The interest charge fell very sharply from £17.6m to £2.9m as the burden of Hicks and Gillett's debts was lifted. It is worth noting that cash interest paid actually rose slightly.
Although not treated as an "exceptional", the club recorded a huge profit on player sales in 2010/11. Such profits are calculated as the difference between the price at which a player is sold and his "book value". Torres was acquired for around £20m and probably had a book value of around £10m when he was sold to Chelsea. That means the club recorded a profit on his sale of around £40m. Add in Mascherano and the "profit on player sales" was £43.3m.
Pre-tax loss
Bringing all these numbers together, Liverpool reported a pre-tax loss of £49.3m compared to £20m the previous year. The exceptional charges are unlikely to re-occur, but neither is the enormous profit on Torres. Estimating a "normal" profit on player sales is very difficult (the figure was £23m in 2010, £4m in 2009), but £10m looks a reasonable estimate for a club with Liverpool's strong youth set-up. Stripping out the exceptional costs and using £10m for a "normal" profit on player sales implies an "underlying" pre-tax loss of c. £23m. The collapse in EBITDA means Liverpool are structurally loss making at these level of income and wages. To change that of course, the club need cheaper players or more revenue.
Cash(flow) is king
Accounting items like non-cash exceptionals, amortisation and player sale profits can often make the profit and loss account of football clubs misleading. It is always important to focus on cash flow as shown in this table:
The collapse in EBITDA (here including cash exceptionals), led to a very sharp fall in operating cash flow at Liverpool. Unlike in the P&L, the transfer spending here reflects actual cash spent and received and with the Carroll spending paid up front but the Torres receipts staggered, there was punchy £40m of cash spending in 2010/11. Deduct interest and the club saw a £42.5m outflow before financing.
It goes without saying that Liverpool need to generate more EBITDA and hence cash flow to be able to compete in the transfer market in the future or will need subsidising by FSG.
Debt and financing
Of the £42.5m cash outflow shown above, £26m came from an injection from new parent company UKSV and the balance from running down the club's cash balance (which fell from £19m to £2.5m).
The £30m "debt" on the Liverpool balance sheet owed to UKSV/FSG is really equity by another name (it attracts no interest). At 31st July there was a real bank loan of £37.7m (the "stadium finance" part of a larger £92m facility with RBS and Wachovia/Wells Fargo) secured on the club's assets.
On 30th September 2011, the club entered into a new £120m facility with RBS, Bank of America and Barclays for £120m. The facility runs for three years. £45m is the stadium project facility and £75m for "general corporate purposes". Whilst with year end debt of only £37.7m there might appear to be plenty of spare capacity, football clubs' cash positions are highly seasonal and the club will definitely need this facility during the course of the season. We do not know the interest rate on this debt (the old facility was LIBOR +450bps).
Prospects and thoughts
Fenway have a very big challenge keeping Liverpool competitive in the next few years. The Warrior kit deal next season will add c. £13m (7%) to revenue, but there was no Champions League football in the current season and there won't be any next season. Wage inflation across football remains endemic despite the imminent arrival of FFP. The playing squad needs investment and a new ground is desperately needed.
If all that wasn't bad enough, the competition for CL places is far fiercer than it was in the good old days of "the big 4". A £100m+ wage bill used to guarantee qualification for the CL, now it barely guarantees qualification for the Europa.
The great unknown in all this is the willingness of FSG to invest their own money in Liverpool FC. So far £30m has flowed in on top of the cost of acquiring the club. The expansion of the banking facility very much suggests that the business will be debt not equity financed in the next year or two and that is a worry.
Despite all this gloom, I think Liverpool will negotiate these financial risks, for two reasons. Firstly as shown by the Standard Chartered and Warrior deals, the club is a big brand still on the global stage. It is commercial success that has allowed United to compete despite its debt burden and remains a key advantage for Liverpool too. Secondly, there is significant scope to expand matchday income if a new stadium can be developed. Liverpool L4 is not London N5, but Arsenal's move to the Emirates gives a flavour of what can be done. Liverpool's matchday income is only 37% of United's. FSG need to close some of that gap.
The other thing Liverpool need is for Financial Fair Play to be rigorously enforced. This is the great unknown of course, but FSG have clearly made a bet that it will stick.
Taken together, the Liverpool "project" is a steep, steep challenge.
The scale of Fenway's challenge at Liverpool becomes clear
Normal health warning: if you don't think a United supporter can impartially analyse Liverpool Football Club's finances don't read on.
Liverpool are a club in transition on and off the pitch. The financial results published overnight show just how great is the challenge facing Fenway Sports Group ("FSG"). We can now see that the American owners spent £261m acquiring and refinancing Liverpool. Of this figure only £30m has actually flowed into the club, the rest was spent on the purchase itself.
I think Liverpool will turn the corner financially, the commercial opportunity is still there and there is clearly the scope to occupy a far larger/more profitable ground. The challenge is getting far more sporting success out of a very expensive squad of players, and that isn't really down to money at all....
FSG's ownership structure
The primary operating company of Liverpool Football Club is "The Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Limited" which the the main entity I will focus on. Since 15th October 2010, 100% of this operating company has been owned by a new vehicle "UKSV Holdings Company Limited". UKSV is in turn owned by NESV I LLC, a US company also (and commonly) known as "Fenway Sports Group". The accounts of UKSV only run from 1st October when it was established to 31st July 2011. The accounts of the operating business, which I'll refer to as "Liverpool" or "the club" for ease, run for the year to 31st July 2011 (i.e. last season).
Ian Ayre's spin
Before the club's accounts were available at Companies House, Managing Director Ian Ayre gave a lengthy interview to the club's website and to the Liverpool Echo. Without making the accounts available, Ayre threw around various numbers and in particular blamed the £50m pre-tax loss on a write-off of work on the abandoned stadium plans. Whilst the write-off had a big impact, he was being pretty disingenuous by not mentioning a pretty exceptional profit (£43.3m) on the sales of Fernando Torres and Javier Mascherano. This profit largely offset the stadium write-off (£49.2m) and that meant that the underlying results were very poor.
Ayre is not alone in spinning his club's financial figures before they come out (hello Chelsea) or not being straight with his supporters (hello United and many, many others), but it is still pretty poor. The club is in transition and there is surely no need for such spin.
Revenues and costs
Football clubs are simple businesses. There are three revenue streams (matchday receipts, media income and commercial deals) and two main operating costs (wages and the costs of operating the club day to day). The difference between these numbers is "EBITDA" (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation), effectively cash profits before any investment or the servicing of debts. After EBITDA come depreciation of the stadium, training ground etc, "amortisation" which is how transfers are accounted for, then interest and (rarely in football) corporation tax.
Liverpool's results for 2010/11 show what happens when costs run ahead of revenues; profits collapse. This is of course the curse of football finance. Success brings income so clubs invest in player wages in the pursuit of this success. Fail to do well on the pitch and the costs are still there but not the income.
Liverpool's revenue was effectively flat last season (down 0.5%). Matchday income fell 4.6% despite the same number of home games, reflecting a small fall in average attendances (40,224 vs. 41,940) more than offsetting ticket prices rises and must imply a fall of in corporate hospitality too. Media income was down 18% as the club failed to qualify for the Champions League (losing £25m of income). This was partly offset by £5m of Europa League income and the £7m increase in PL TV money from overseas rights. Commercial revenue was the star area with the Standard Chartered deal driving it up £15m or 25%. The Warrior kit deal will not impact the accounts until 2012/13.
Although revenues were down a fraction, there was significant cost growth as the club spent heavily in an attempt to break back into the top 4. Pre-exceptional staff costs rose a very punchy 12.7% year-on-year. This wage growth is more down to contract increases than transfers in my opinion. Although the club signed Cole, Poulsen, Konchesky, Meireles etc, Mascherano, Riera and Benayoun all departed and the January flurry of transfers will not have impacted the full year numbers significantly.
Total operating costs (pre-exceptionals) rose 9.3%, driving EBITDA before players sales down by 63% to only £9.8m, a margin of 5.3%. The graph below shows how the club's EBITDA has fallen very sharply since 2009 revenue despite growing slightly. Liverpool are overspending.
The issue of rampant wage inflation is not of course unique to Liverpool. The graph below shows that Arsenal, Everton, United and City all saw wages rise faster than turnover last season. The problem for Liverpool is however more acute than at other clubs, fundamentally because Liverpool are operating a squad with a Champions League cost base without Champions League income.
Liverpool's wage bill is quite competitive in Premier League terms, fourth behind City, Chelsea and United but the dreaded wages/turnover ratio is rising sharply (up to 70% from 62%). That puts Liverpool much closer to Chelsea (76%) than Arsenal or Everton (55% and 56% respectively).
Amortisation is the method by which transfer spending is recognised in the profit and loss account. It reflects the level of transfer spending a club does, spread out over the life of player contracts. Importantly it forms part of the UEFA's FFP calculation. At Liverpool the amortisation charge has been quite high, reflecting steady transfer spending under Benitez and Hodgson. The charge fell from £40m to £36m in 2010/11.
Depreciation (on Anfield and Melwood) was up slightly at £2.9m (vs. £2.1m).
Exceptionals, player sales and interest
Exceptional costs totaled £58.99m in 2010/11. Of this, £49.2m was a write-off of capitalised costs relating to the abandoned stadium project. It is important to stress that this is not a cash cost in 2010/11, the money had already been spent in previous years. Most of the balance of the exceptional charges relate to getting rid of Roy Hodgson. The club spent £8.4m changing managers last season compared to £7.8m getting rid of Benitez the year before.
The interest charge fell very sharply from £17.6m to £2.9m as the burden of Hicks and Gillett's debts was lifted. It is worth noting that cash interest paid actually rose slightly.
Although not treated as an "exceptional", the club recorded a huge profit on player sales in 2010/11. Such profits are calculated as the difference between the price at which a player is sold and his "book value". Torres was acquired for around £20m and probably had a book value of around £10m when he was sold to Chelsea. That means the club recorded a profit on his sale of around £40m. Add in Mascherano and the "profit on player sales" was £43.3m.
Pre-tax loss
Bringing all these numbers together, Liverpool reported a pre-tax loss of £49.3m compared to £20m the previous year. The exceptional charges are unlikely to re-occur, but neither is the enormous profit on Torres. Estimating a "normal" profit on player sales is very difficult (the figure was £23m in 2010, £4m in 2009), but £10m looks a reasonable estimate for a club with Liverpool's strong youth set-up. Stripping out the exceptional costs and using £10m for a "normal" profit on player sales implies an "underlying" pre-tax loss of c. £23m. The collapse in EBITDA means Liverpool are structurally loss making at these level of income and wages. To change that of course, the club need cheaper players or more revenue.
Cash(flow) is king
Accounting items like non-cash exceptionals, amortisation and player sale profits can often make the profit and loss account of football clubs misleading. It is always important to focus on cash flow as shown in this table:
The collapse in EBITDA (here including cash exceptionals), led to a very sharp fall in operating cash flow at Liverpool. Unlike in the P&L, the transfer spending here reflects actual cash spent and received and with the Carroll spending paid up front but the Torres receipts staggered, there was punchy £40m of cash spending in 2010/11. Deduct interest and the club saw a £42.5m outflow before financing.
It goes without saying that Liverpool need to generate more EBITDA and hence cash flow to be able to compete in the transfer market in the future or will need subsidising by FSG.
Debt and financing
Of the £42.5m cash outflow shown above, £26m came from an injection from new parent company UKSV and the balance from running down the club's cash balance (which fell from £19m to £2.5m).
The £30m "debt" on the Liverpool balance sheet owed to UKSV/FSG is really equity by another name (it attracts no interest). At 31st July there was a real bank loan of £37.7m (the "stadium finance" part of a larger £92m facility with RBS and Wachovia/Wells Fargo) secured on the club's assets.
On 30th September 2011, the club entered into a new £120m facility with RBS, Bank of America and Barclays for £120m. The facility runs for three years. £45m is the stadium project facility and £75m for "general corporate purposes". Whilst with year end debt of only £37.7m there might appear to be plenty of spare capacity, football clubs' cash positions are highly seasonal and the club will definitely need this facility during the course of the season. We do not know the interest rate on this debt (the old facility was LIBOR +450bps).
Prospects and thoughts
Fenway have a very big challenge keeping Liverpool competitive in the next few years. The Warrior kit deal next season will add c. £13m (7%) to revenue, but there was no Champions League football in the current season and there won't be any next season. Wage inflation across football remains endemic despite the imminent arrival of FFP. The playing squad needs investment and a new ground is desperately needed.
If all that wasn't bad enough, the competition for CL places is far fiercer than it was in the good old days of "the big 4". A £100m+ wage bill used to guarantee qualification for the CL, now it barely guarantees qualification for the Europa.
The great unknown in all this is the willingness of FSG to invest their own money in Liverpool FC. So far £30m has flowed in on top of the cost of acquiring the club. The expansion of the banking facility very much suggests that the business will be debt not equity financed in the next year or two and that is a worry.
Despite all this gloom, I think Liverpool will negotiate these financial risks, for two reasons. Firstly as shown by the Standard Chartered and Warrior deals, the club is a big brand still on the global stage. It is commercial success that has allowed United to compete despite its debt burden and remains a key advantage for Liverpool too. Secondly, there is significant scope to expand matchday income if a new stadium can be developed. Liverpool L4 is not London N5, but Arsenal's move to the Emirates gives a flavour of what can be done. Liverpool's matchday income is only 37% of United's. FSG need to close some of that gap.
The other thing Liverpool need is for Financial Fair Play to be rigorously enforced. This is the great unknown of course, but FSG have clearly made a bet that it will stick.
Taken together, the Liverpool "project" is a steep, steep challenge.
FA are putting free plastic flags on every seat, and from what I can gather, people are going around and are going to bin them
Gonna donate mine to a Chelsea fan
I'm sure team with greatest history "Madrid" did it against Bayern and Arsenal did it against United.
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Yeah
Ride The Walrus
A pretty cool guy.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10,216
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Huntelaar, Mulgrew, Greizmann, and a creative midfielder would be amazing.
I CAN DREAM
I CAN DREAM
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Anyone give me quick re-cap of the game today, was at work all night!
Really gutted
Really gutted
No we do it because we are ******* minted and can afford to give things back to the fans!!!! Didn't see too many Liverpool fans ditching them either!!!
Barca also done it in the 2nd leg against Chelsea.
Chelsea the better team for 60mins, Ramires made Enrique look silly for the first goal great ball from Mata from a lost ball by Spearing. Drogba's goal came from a good ball by Lampard which he was closed down by Spearing poorly, shot went through Reina's legs. Carroll came on made a nusence of himself and scored a very good goal, also had one saved (one of the best saves i have ever seen) by Cech which he tipped onto the underside of the ball (people think it was in, no chance).
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Cheers, yes i saw the 'goal' and im undecided.. tbh the replays are inconclusive in terms of both debates.. very hard to judge tho as a ref so not too fussed about it
By the sounds of it, better team won... i just am not confident with an ageing Gerrad, Henderson, Spearing and Shelvey as our CM options.. without Lucas we look very weak
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Sigurdsson is a great player, surely at 6 Million he must be looked at?
Would also love to see us go for Luuk De Jong, realistic, only around 12 mil and 32 goals this season?
Would also love to see us go for Luuk De Jong, realistic, only around 12 mil and 32 goals this season?
Hoffenheim want over 8m for Sigurdsson. Would still be a steal at that price and great replacement for Gerrard. Dont know though what you will do with all of your midfielders next season when Aquilani comes back.