In the Merseyside Derby not long after, Liverpool's star Van Dyke was injured in a collision with the opposing goalkeeper. After the game, he was diagnosed with a torn cruciate ligament and will miss the rest of the season.
Xia Chuang did not add to the weak central defender position on the bench, and now he also lost the defensive core. Considering the injury history of the remaining two first-team full-time central defenders, it is difficult for the optimistic KOP to find peace of mind this time. Reasons.
More than a month ago, the Red Army fans just looked through the financial report, looking for reasons why Liverpool did not have the money to sign in. After a dream week at the end of September, the KOPs who were contented found at this time that the same question came back again: Does Liverpool still have money to improve the central defender?
As a Champions League + Premier League champion, "shabby" is no one at this point. Every time I have to worry about signing funds, why is this?
Looking at profit alone, Liverpool has never looked like a lack of money in recent years. from
But sometimes profits can be deceiving. First, we need to understand a little bit of basic accounting standards.
Take the transfer transaction as an example. If the club pays 10 million transfer fees this year to buy a player, signs a five-year contract, and counts this year’s player registration rights amortization of 10/5=2 million on the income statement.
以转移交易为例。如果俱乐部今年为购买球员支付了1000万转会费，签订了一份为期五年的合同，并且在收益表中将今年的球员注册权摊销额计算为10/5 = 200万。
The magic is that 10 million yuan was spent in cash, but only 2 million yuan in profit was reduced that year! Of course, the remaining 8 million cost did not disappear out of thin air, but was allocated to the next four years.
When this set of rules meets the sale of players, it becomes a magic weapon for adjusting short-term profits.
If the player is sold at the end of the third year of the contract, the price is 10 million. At this time, the player's registration rights were amortized for three years and 6 million, and the net value was only 4 million. Different from the cost-sharing and accounting, the club can realize an asset disposal income of 1,000-400=6 million in one year!
如果在合同的第三年末出售播放器，则价格为1000万。这时，玩家的注册权分三年摊销，共计600万，净值仅为400万。与成本分摊和核算不同，俱乐部一年内可以实现1000-400 = 600万的资产处置收入！
A magical thing has happened again. It is clear that both in and out are at the same price. How can accounting income of 6 million "out of thin air" be realized in the third year?
In fact, from a three-year perspective, the player has confirmed a total of 6 million amortized costs in the first three years, which exactly offsets the 6 million disposal gains in the third year. Everything is just an illusion caused by the accounting period.
Yes, this is the mismatch between profit and cash flow.
Where did the money go? So the question is, where did Liverpool's money go? Let us look at a cash flow statement that is not "deceptive".
So the question is, where did Liverpool's money go? Let us look at a cash flow statement that is not "deceptive".
By summarizing the cash flow statement for the 16/17 to 18/19 seasons, we can find that
In addition, the Red Army also spent £91 million on the expansion of the Anfield Phase I and Kirkby Training Base renovation project to repay bank and shareholder loans of 5 million and 14 million, respectively.
Therefore, although the club’s accumulated net profit during the same period was as high as 180 million pounds, the investment in players and fixed assets has not yet been fully reflected, and the actual cash surplus is very small.
At the end of the 18/19 season, Liverpool's cash balance of 38 million ranked 12th in the top 20 of the Deloitte Football Fortune List, and was only higher than Chelsea in the top six of the Premier League.
It is conceivable that things are not much better now after a season. Manchester United recently announced the 19/20 season annual report, net profit fell from 19 million pounds in the previous season to a loss of 23 million, and the cash balance fell from 300 million a year ago to 52 million, which can be used as a reference.
It seems that Liverpool's 17/18 and 18/19 seasons of more than 100 million pounds will no longer be repeated. Correspondingly,
Under Fenway's established operating policy of self-financing, in the face of the uncertainties faced by the new season, the management has been forgiven for its cautious attitude.
In fact, Liverpool's financial situation is not exhausted. Careful readers may notice that in the previous three seasons, Liverpool did not increase the level of debt, but returned 14 million shareholder loans and 5 million bank loans.
This shows that at least until the 18/19 season, the team is still able to cope with daily operations, and there is room to return the previous investment of shareholders.
Indebtedness is not a scourge for business operations. The rational use of leverage can increase shareholder returns. This is the basic theory of corporate finance.
It is worth mentioning that most of the prices in the Tiago and Jota transactions will be paid in installments later, which will have little impact on current cash flow. The Wolves’ team reporter disclosed that nearly 10 million of Ruota’s price was paid in installments as "interest."
At the end of the 18/19 season, Liverpool's net transfer fee payable of 120 million pounds was second only to Manchester United's 170 million in Big 6.
There is no need to be too harsh on the management's decision in the summer. After the introduction of top midfielder Thiago, Fabinho's back shift is predictable. Van Dyke's pairing with the other three is generally reassuring, but the injury came so suddenly that it was unexpected.
The healthy "World One Guard" can't come back. Did you continue to make do with the person in your hand, or open your wallet and "loan" to gamble? This decision is not so easy to make.
If I make a conclusion to the question at the beginning, I will say,
There are still more than two months to go before the winter window, let us see what happens next.