Liverpool have already brought in Florian Wirtz from Bayer Leverkusen for £100m, Hugo Ekitiké from Eintracht Frankfurt for £69m, Milos Kerkez from Bournemouth for £40m and Jeremie Frimpong again from Leverkusen for £30m.
The eventual transfer fees could be even higher if all the
add-ons are paid, e.g. another £16m for Wirtz and £10m for Ekitiké, while the
total cost to be capitalised will include agent fees (assumed at 10%), the 4%
Premier League levy and a 5% solidarity payment for international deals.
As it stands, i.e. excluding the potential Isak purchase,
Liverpool have still spent a cool £284m, with only two other clubs breaking
through the £200m barrier, namely Chelsea £285m and Arsenal £220m.
To place this into perspective, if Isak’s signing is
secured, Liverpool’s £421m would be the second highest annual transfer spend
ever in England, only surpassed by Chelsea’s £745m massive outlay in the first
season after the arrival of the Clearlake Capital crew. Even if Isak does not arrive, Liverpool’s
£284m would be the fifth highest in history in England.
Part of Liverpool’s transfer spending has been offset by
player sales, most notably the deal taking Luis Diaz to Bayern Munich. This was
worth £61m before add-ons, generating £45m profit on the sale, having deducted
the £16m remaining value in the books.
In addition, the club has made good money on a few academy
products, especially Jarell Quansah to Leverkusen for £30m and Caoimhin
Kelleher to Brentford for £10m, as well as the €10m fee that Real Madrid paid
to secure Trent Alexander-Arnold’s services in time for the Club World Cup. As
everyone knows by now, such deals represent “pure profit”, so they contributed
more than £50m to the pot.
When a player is purchased the cost is spread over a few
years, but any profit made from selling a player is booked to the accounts
immediately. So transfer fees are not
fully expensed when a player is purchased, but are written-off evenly over the
length of the contract via player amortisation.
One reason that Liverpool are able to spend so much this
summer is their relative restraint in the transfer market in previous seasons. In particular, Liverpool had the lowest gross
spend in the Premier League in 2024/25 with just £37m.
In fact, Liverpool actually had negative net spend last
season, which highlights the fact that sometimes it’s not how much money a club
spends, but how well it spends it, as seen by the Reds outperforming every
other club to win their 20th league title.
Liverpool will have received a higher distribution from the
Premier League last season after winning the title. Their third place in
2023/24 earned them £171m, so we have estimated an increase up to £179m.
Furthermore, the new TV rights cycle starts in 2025/26,
which will deliver even more revenue. Although the domestic deal has only risen
by around 4%, there has been a significant increase in some of the overseas
rights, e.g. the Middle East and North Africa deal with BeIN was renewed with a
10% uplift.
Will Liverpool have any problems complying with the Premier
League’s Profitability and Sustainability Regulations? In short, no, at least not for the
foreseeable future.
Liverpool should have more available cash going forward, as
they will no longer need to invest so much in infrastructure, given that the
stadium development has largely come to an end. The Anfield Road stand
expansion led to an average of £53m expenditure in each of the last two
seasons.
Liverpool should have more available cash going forward, as
they will no longer need to invest so much in infrastructure, given that the
stadium development has largely come to an end. The Anfield Road stand
expansion led to an average of £53m expenditure in each of the last two
seasons.
The club will view this investment in players as increasing
its chances of winning more silverware, while having the additional benefit of
improving the chances of generating future player trading profits
Comments
Post a Comment