Did you read James Pearses article in the echo last night? He got an awful amount of abuse on Twitter fro being an apologist as he said that FSG backed Klopp in Jan but Klopp only wanted to buy the players he wanted, also that Klopp, Edwards and Gordon all over estimated teh strength of the squad at the start of the season, and that the owners are fully intent on backing Klopp in the summer.
I don't like to moan about them as overall I think they've done a good job, I don't get the reaction to the leaked e-mails, yes they used words like "steal" but gettign Liverpool for the debt (what 350 millon or so) and the club is now valued at 1.6 billion! It was a feckign steal.
But you have to also look at the trophies won under FSG, one leage cup, the average league position is around 6th, and as you've pointed out 17 million net per season, the figures I saw yesterday was they have spent about 120 million on players when you look at all the ins and outs, really it's not much.
I was listenting to an Anfiled Wrap Podcast and heard an interesting theory, that Klopp took a risk not spending more last summer or in January with the hope to qualify for the CL this season then spend big in the summer, this woudl also make sense for FFP, basically spend 2 years worth of money in one go if we have CL football to attract players, it coudl work out very well if it happens but it's also a risk if we don't get top 4.
For me this summer is huge, IMO we need to spend over 100 million on 4-5 quality players, but I think we will see this and also we will see it done early well in time for pre season.
I do defo think though that if Klopp want's a player the price isn't that relevant, if we can sign the player Klopp wants FSG will buy him.
Did you read James Pearses article in the echo last night?
=====================
Yeah it's what made me write this article and I've heard that about the summer to which I alluded to (I need to get that podcast).
It is a big summer for them for sure and I too believe think they will spend quite big but I think that will be net with less players leaving so it's all relative.
What do you think about my theory about them fattening us up for sale knee?
There's a very good article in the Echo today, Robbing. It deals with FSG and their 'steal' when purchasing the club from Butch and Sundance.
Apparently we are being invited to take offence to their internal, pre-purchase internal e-mail language. With the club now valued at £1.6B its proved a shrewd investment for them
And that's what they are, financial investors, and they've done well. But, more importantly, focusing on your figure of £17M, and bearing in mind that Brendan was with us until 16months ago, we've got a manager who makes no secret he can get all the funds he wants from FSG, Juergen is a man who spends carefully, wisely, especially when you see and compare the money spent by the two Manc clubs.
I've got no problem with FSG whatsoever, they've never admitted being any more than a financial investment company, and for us, they've done us proud, especially with the new stadium.
Put another way, would you (I'm sure you wouldn't) prefer the window fitters from Manu? Or the owners at disasterland, better known as Blackburn Rovers? How about Coventry?
JimmyTheRed
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
I can see both sides Jimmy. I mean it's not exactly a new stadium is it. In fact they have said that they are not going to finish it.
You could also cite that TV money is up, tickets are up, sponsorship is up as are the commercial deals whilst proactively trying to trim the wages (bit skewed now with the TV money so some perspective needed there).
But we're not going bust and we never will so that can't be bad.
I can't put a mark on their ownership by looking at other clubs though as it's moot.
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 1 minute ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just end it all kash.
comment by Robbing_Hoody (U6374)
posted 8 minutes ago
Did you read James Pearses article in the echo last night?
=====================
Yeah it's what made me write this article and I've heard that about the summer to which I alluded to (I need to get that podcast).
It is a big summer for them for sure and I too believe think they will spend quite big but I think that will be net with less players leaving so it's all relative.
What do you think about my theory about them fattening us up for sale knee?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It makes sense for sure, they've grown the commercial side so much and raised th value of the club to such a level that shoudl they sell they will make serios profit, they are a sports investment firm so doing this would makes sense.
But I don't think they will just sell to the highest bidder, I'd think they would be very careful who they sell to, but then we thought Moores would do this and he sold to Tom and Jerry.
But would FSG selling the club to the right person / company be such a bad thing? Could lead to a higher level of investment in the team.
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
Kneerash nails it for me with the transfer spending. Next window is huge.
Those 'leaked' emails were also from around the time of the takeover and so it's understandable that a few of the words used are questionable (e.g. soccer, franchise). Since then FSG seem to have wised up about how football works - look how quickly the 'moneyball' approach was dropped - and in particular how LFC works - keeping us at Anfield, attendance at Hillsborough services, etc. They're not perfect but as Jimmy says there are far worse owners about and at least FSG seem willing to listen and engage with the fans.
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
But would FSG selling the club to the right person / company be such a bad thing? Could lead to a higher level of investment in the team.
=========================
I actually wouldn't mind but I am in the nice position of never giving grief to the likes of Chelsea and City (even Utd) about how much they spend and where the money is coming from.
I must admit there is part of me that would like to see the very best players on the highest wages plying their trade in L4.
Saying that I would rather do it the holistic way in which we are trying now with youth, development of younger players brought in and some savvy transfer business which to be fair nearly brought us a league title in 2014 and could yet deliver a strong league campaign this year.
I thought the e-mails were interesting in terms of how Henry saw the opportunity others didn't, he says that everyone said a new stadium must be built costing 350 million (turning other potential investors off buying us at the time) or so, but he instantly thought that they could do to Anfield what they did to Fenway, and for me anyway I'm much happier with developing Anfield than building a new ground.
I know Tom and Jerry were a disaster for us, but it did lead to FSG buying us and the development of Anfield, DIC who came so close to buying us are no longer existant so we could have been in awful trouble had they bought us instead.
I know Tom and Jerry were a disaster for us, but it did lead to FSG buying us and the development of Anfield, DIC who came so close to buying us are no longer existant so we could have been in awful trouble had they bought us instead.
==================================
It's also easy to forget that the cowboys delivered a CL and the best midfield I have seen at LFC since the 80's or even arguably in my lifetime.
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No not a bad thing and I think now we would be far more appealing to an owner like that. It's hard to know really how it would work out as pros and cons to it, like we could buy loads of top class players and do great, or we could waste a ton of money (Chelsea and City had to do this) and still not win things.
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not particularly a pot chaser though Kash although trophies are lovely and I am always proud of the lads when they pick one up.
Genuine question here but are you actually a little gutted you chose LFC all those years ago?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Fair point ACE. The major difference is that we genuinely nearly went under. To sort that out should not be underestimated I feel.
comment by Dean Sturridge's Nephü (Formerly LGT... (U13718)
posted 3 minutes ago
Kneerash nails it for me with the transfer spending. Next window is huge.
Those 'leaked' emails were also from around the time of the takeover and so it's understandable that a few of the words used are questionable (e.g. soccer, franchise). Since then FSG seem to have wised up about how football works - look how quickly the 'moneyball' approach was dropped - and in particular how LFC works - keeping us at Anfield, attendance at Hillsborough services, etc. They're not perfect but as Jimmy says there are far worse owners about and at least FSG seem willing to listen and engage with the fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah agree completley, Henry knew feck all about football at the time, he saw a major business opportunity which is what he excells at and he took it, it's clearly worked too as if they sold today they could make 1 billion profit!!!!!
But like you say this summer is huge in terms of us developing as a club and for me could define FSG's legacy at the club, if we start next season with a similar net spend to last summer I'll be annoyed as I really don't see us getting much money for players sold, really I can only think of Studge and Can who would get close to a 20 million figure (maybe more) from the players who I think will go.
Of course if we say sold Cout we could get a huge fee but we don't want to sell him, the only 2 players I can see leaving who fans would potentially want to keep are Studge and Can, but if we sold them and got better players in we'd all be pretty happy I'd imagine.
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No not a bad thing and I think now we would be far more appealing to an owner like that. It's hard to know really how it would work out as pros and cons to it, like we could buy loads of top class players and do great, or we could waste a ton of money (Chelsea and City had to do this) and still not win things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The chances of success are far greater even if a load of money is spunked.
Should Chelsea (very likely) win title this year it would mean in last 6 years both them and City have won the prem 2 times each.
We will never match United's global reach. Our way of working requires alot of luck.
Can't be bothered to post all the tweets and FB messages but a real mised bag to Pearce's article;
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fans-say-james-pearces-fsg-12572031
The main thing a lot of people seem to forget is that shortly after FSG purchased the club they always rammed the thing about making the club self sufficient. Even Ayre was always bleating on about this. Whenever i use to read this, I always knew that they werent gonna splash their cash.
Now despite all this, they have still provided the club with interest fee loans and secured the loan for the stand and there are still some developments happening in and around the stadium. I think we are also looking at redeveloping anfield road stand
Although there's been whispers that the redevelopment isnt going to bring in much profits if you take into account the costs. Seems a bit short term thinking behind this one.
But that's just off the field stuff.
On the field, i think our scouting & recruitment departments needs to be stoned. Im not saying you have to get everything right but most of our big money moves pre-Klopp have been iffy. The tricky thing about transfers is sales can often offset your losses on other deals but the flip side is you're more than likely selling your good players to balance these books.
I also think that we should wait for CL first before we spend big under Klopp. You dont need a massive squad to challenge for top4 in the league, if you focus on the league.
But we NEED to sort the defensive side of the team out, but not spend big until it gets CL
Tricky situation for Klopp but it can be done.
Also if we dont get CL this season, i dont think it's a train smash because we should use the EL for squad management 'training' so when we do eventually get into the CL we know what works & what doesnt.
Genuine question here but are you actually a little gutted you chose LFC all those years ago?
===============
Not sure how i can answer that when all i've ever known is to support Liverpool.
Was a little young for the 1990 title so do not know how it feels to be champions.
Of course if we say sold Cout we could get a huge fee but we don't want to sell him, the only 2 players I can see leaving who fans would potentially want to keep are Studge and Can, but if we sold them and got better players in we'd all be pretty happy I'd imagine.
===========================
Can won't be going anywhere I don't think. He's going to be a big player for LFC.
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 5 minutes ago
Doesn't sound too dissimilar from the Spurs model. We are owned by an invetsment company. The last minute £30m purchase of Sissoko aside, we have year on year made profits on player trading since 2010, hence the whole net spend trophy joke. We've been able to organically grow the club from within, ie no oil money or sugar daddy etc and develop new training facilities and a new 61k seater stadium, a lot like FSG building the new stand. Some whispers that we are being fattened up for a sale too, who knows. I guess the significant difference is with Spurs its been a slow but steady upward trend of growth, whereas Liverpool it feels more like having to take a step back to move forward having been an established CL club and title challengers during the '00's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A sensible post with no insults?! Who are you and what have you done with the real Ace?
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 4 seconds ago
Genuine question here but are you actually a little gutted you chose LFC all those years ago?
===============
Not sure how i can answer that when all i've ever known is to support Liverpool.
Was a little young for the 1990 title so do not know how it feels to be champions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your stance sometimes then. I mean I was born in '79 and don't get angry about us not challenging City and Chelsea. Like it or not those two clubs have rocked this league massively.
Sign in if you want to comment
£17m net per year
Page 1 of 4
posted on 8/2/17
Did you read James Pearses article in the echo last night? He got an awful amount of abuse on Twitter fro being an apologist as he said that FSG backed Klopp in Jan but Klopp only wanted to buy the players he wanted, also that Klopp, Edwards and Gordon all over estimated teh strength of the squad at the start of the season, and that the owners are fully intent on backing Klopp in the summer.
I don't like to moan about them as overall I think they've done a good job, I don't get the reaction to the leaked e-mails, yes they used words like "steal" but gettign Liverpool for the debt (what 350 millon or so) and the club is now valued at 1.6 billion! It was a feckign steal.
But you have to also look at the trophies won under FSG, one leage cup, the average league position is around 6th, and as you've pointed out 17 million net per season, the figures I saw yesterday was they have spent about 120 million on players when you look at all the ins and outs, really it's not much.
I was listenting to an Anfiled Wrap Podcast and heard an interesting theory, that Klopp took a risk not spending more last summer or in January with the hope to qualify for the CL this season then spend big in the summer, this woudl also make sense for FFP, basically spend 2 years worth of money in one go if we have CL football to attract players, it coudl work out very well if it happens but it's also a risk if we don't get top 4.
For me this summer is huge, IMO we need to spend over 100 million on 4-5 quality players, but I think we will see this and also we will see it done early well in time for pre season.
I do defo think though that if Klopp want's a player the price isn't that relevant, if we can sign the player Klopp wants FSG will buy him.
posted on 8/2/17
Did you read James Pearses article in the echo last night?
=====================
Yeah it's what made me write this article and I've heard that about the summer to which I alluded to (I need to get that podcast).
It is a big summer for them for sure and I too believe think they will spend quite big but I think that will be net with less players leaving so it's all relative.
What do you think about my theory about them fattening us up for sale knee?
posted on 8/2/17
There's a very good article in the Echo today, Robbing. It deals with FSG and their 'steal' when purchasing the club from Butch and Sundance.
Apparently we are being invited to take offence to their internal, pre-purchase internal e-mail language. With the club now valued at £1.6B its proved a shrewd investment for them
And that's what they are, financial investors, and they've done well. But, more importantly, focusing on your figure of £17M, and bearing in mind that Brendan was with us until 16months ago, we've got a manager who makes no secret he can get all the funds he wants from FSG, Juergen is a man who spends carefully, wisely, especially when you see and compare the money spent by the two Manc clubs.
I've got no problem with FSG whatsoever, they've never admitted being any more than a financial investment company, and for us, they've done us proud, especially with the new stadium.
Put another way, would you (I'm sure you wouldn't) prefer the window fitters from Manu? Or the owners at disasterland, better known as Blackburn Rovers? How about Coventry?
JimmyTheRed
posted on 8/2/17
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
posted on 8/2/17
I can see both sides Jimmy. I mean it's not exactly a new stadium is it. In fact they have said that they are not going to finish it.
You could also cite that TV money is up, tickets are up, sponsorship is up as are the commercial deals whilst proactively trying to trim the wages (bit skewed now with the TV money so some perspective needed there).
But we're not going bust and we never will so that can't be bad.
I can't put a mark on their ownership by looking at other clubs though as it's moot.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 1 minute ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just end it all kash.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by Robbing_Hoody (U6374)
posted 8 minutes ago
Did you read James Pearses article in the echo last night?
=====================
Yeah it's what made me write this article and I've heard that about the summer to which I alluded to (I need to get that podcast).
It is a big summer for them for sure and I too believe think they will spend quite big but I think that will be net with less players leaving so it's all relative.
What do you think about my theory about them fattening us up for sale knee?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It makes sense for sure, they've grown the commercial side so much and raised th value of the club to such a level that shoudl they sell they will make serios profit, they are a sports investment firm so doing this would makes sense.
But I don't think they will just sell to the highest bidder, I'd think they would be very careful who they sell to, but then we thought Moores would do this and he sold to Tom and Jerry.
But would FSG selling the club to the right person / company be such a bad thing? Could lead to a higher level of investment in the team.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
posted on 8/2/17
Kneerash nails it for me with the transfer spending. Next window is huge.
Those 'leaked' emails were also from around the time of the takeover and so it's understandable that a few of the words used are questionable (e.g. soccer, franchise). Since then FSG seem to have wised up about how football works - look how quickly the 'moneyball' approach was dropped - and in particular how LFC works - keeping us at Anfield, attendance at Hillsborough services, etc. They're not perfect but as Jimmy says there are far worse owners about and at least FSG seem willing to listen and engage with the fans.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
posted on 8/2/17
But would FSG selling the club to the right person / company be such a bad thing? Could lead to a higher level of investment in the team.
=========================
I actually wouldn't mind but I am in the nice position of never giving grief to the likes of Chelsea and City (even Utd) about how much they spend and where the money is coming from.
I must admit there is part of me that would like to see the very best players on the highest wages plying their trade in L4.
Saying that I would rather do it the holistic way in which we are trying now with youth, development of younger players brought in and some savvy transfer business which to be fair nearly brought us a league title in 2014 and could yet deliver a strong league campaign this year.
posted on 8/2/17
I thought the e-mails were interesting in terms of how Henry saw the opportunity others didn't, he says that everyone said a new stadium must be built costing 350 million (turning other potential investors off buying us at the time) or so, but he instantly thought that they could do to Anfield what they did to Fenway, and for me anyway I'm much happier with developing Anfield than building a new ground.
I know Tom and Jerry were a disaster for us, but it did lead to FSG buying us and the development of Anfield, DIC who came so close to buying us are no longer existant so we could have been in awful trouble had they bought us instead.
posted on 8/2/17
I know Tom and Jerry were a disaster for us, but it did lead to FSG buying us and the development of Anfield, DIC who came so close to buying us are no longer existant so we could have been in awful trouble had they bought us instead.
==================================
It's also easy to forget that the cowboys delivered a CL and the best midfield I have seen at LFC since the 80's or even arguably in my lifetime.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No not a bad thing and I think now we would be far more appealing to an owner like that. It's hard to know really how it would work out as pros and cons to it, like we could buy loads of top class players and do great, or we could waste a ton of money (Chelsea and City had to do this) and still not win things.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not particularly a pot chaser though Kash although trophies are lovely and I am always proud of the lads when they pick one up.
Genuine question here but are you actually a little gutted you chose LFC all those years ago?
posted on 8/2/17
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/2/17
Fair point ACE. The major difference is that we genuinely nearly went under. To sort that out should not be underestimated I feel.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by Dean Sturridge's Nephü (Formerly LGT... (U13718)
posted 3 minutes ago
Kneerash nails it for me with the transfer spending. Next window is huge.
Those 'leaked' emails were also from around the time of the takeover and so it's understandable that a few of the words used are questionable (e.g. soccer, franchise). Since then FSG seem to have wised up about how football works - look how quickly the 'moneyball' approach was dropped - and in particular how LFC works - keeping us at Anfield, attendance at Hillsborough services, etc. They're not perfect but as Jimmy says there are far worse owners about and at least FSG seem willing to listen and engage with the fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah agree completley, Henry knew feck all about football at the time, he saw a major business opportunity which is what he excells at and he took it, it's clearly worked too as if they sold today they could make 1 billion profit!!!!!
But like you say this summer is huge in terms of us developing as a club and for me could define FSG's legacy at the club, if we start next season with a similar net spend to last summer I'll be annoyed as I really don't see us getting much money for players sold, really I can only think of Studge and Can who would get close to a 20 million figure (maybe more) from the players who I think will go.
Of course if we say sold Cout we could get a huge fee but we don't want to sell him, the only 2 players I can see leaving who fans would potentially want to keep are Studge and Can, but if we sold them and got better players in we'd all be pretty happy I'd imagine.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 8 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 29 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the ... (U1108)
posted 5 minutes ago
So basically we are a poor mans Arsenal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you want a Chelsea / City style ownership?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that a bad thing? Chelsea are probably one of the shrewdest teams in the market.
They went crazy early on but now have settled and have model. Make loads of money on loans and sell players at the right time.
Last 4-5 years City and Chelsea have seen plenty of trophies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No not a bad thing and I think now we would be far more appealing to an owner like that. It's hard to know really how it would work out as pros and cons to it, like we could buy loads of top class players and do great, or we could waste a ton of money (Chelsea and City had to do this) and still not win things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The chances of success are far greater even if a load of money is spunked.
Should Chelsea (very likely) win title this year it would mean in last 6 years both them and City have won the prem 2 times each.
We will never match United's global reach. Our way of working requires alot of luck.
posted on 8/2/17
Can't be bothered to post all the tweets and FB messages but a real mised bag to Pearce's article;
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fans-say-james-pearces-fsg-12572031
posted on 8/2/17
The main thing a lot of people seem to forget is that shortly after FSG purchased the club they always rammed the thing about making the club self sufficient. Even Ayre was always bleating on about this. Whenever i use to read this, I always knew that they werent gonna splash their cash.
Now despite all this, they have still provided the club with interest fee loans and secured the loan for the stand and there are still some developments happening in and around the stadium. I think we are also looking at redeveloping anfield road stand
Although there's been whispers that the redevelopment isnt going to bring in much profits if you take into account the costs. Seems a bit short term thinking behind this one.
But that's just off the field stuff.
On the field, i think our scouting & recruitment departments needs to be stoned. Im not saying you have to get everything right but most of our big money moves pre-Klopp have been iffy. The tricky thing about transfers is sales can often offset your losses on other deals but the flip side is you're more than likely selling your good players to balance these books.
I also think that we should wait for CL first before we spend big under Klopp. You dont need a massive squad to challenge for top4 in the league, if you focus on the league.
But we NEED to sort the defensive side of the team out, but not spend big until it gets CL
Tricky situation for Klopp but it can be done.
Also if we dont get CL this season, i dont think it's a train smash because we should use the EL for squad management 'training' so when we do eventually get into the CL we know what works & what doesnt.
posted on 8/2/17
Genuine question here but are you actually a little gutted you chose LFC all those years ago?
===============
Not sure how i can answer that when all i've ever known is to support Liverpool.
Was a little young for the 1990 title so do not know how it feels to be champions.
posted on 8/2/17
Of course if we say sold Cout we could get a huge fee but we don't want to sell him, the only 2 players I can see leaving who fans would potentially want to keep are Studge and Can, but if we sold them and got better players in we'd all be pretty happy I'd imagine.
===========================
Can won't be going anywhere I don't think. He's going to be a big player for LFC.
posted on 8/2/17
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 5 minutes ago
Doesn't sound too dissimilar from the Spurs model. We are owned by an invetsment company. The last minute £30m purchase of Sissoko aside, we have year on year made profits on player trading since 2010, hence the whole net spend trophy joke. We've been able to organically grow the club from within, ie no oil money or sugar daddy etc and develop new training facilities and a new 61k seater stadium, a lot like FSG building the new stand. Some whispers that we are being fattened up for a sale too, who knows. I guess the significant difference is with Spurs its been a slow but steady upward trend of growth, whereas Liverpool it feels more like having to take a step back to move forward having been an established CL club and title challengers during the '00's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A sensible post with no insults?! Who are you and what have you done with the real Ace?
posted on 8/2/17
comment by (Kash) I'm the Mané, I'm the Mané - Justice4Gaza (U1108)
posted 4 seconds ago
Genuine question here but are you actually a little gutted you chose LFC all those years ago?
===============
Not sure how i can answer that when all i've ever known is to support Liverpool.
Was a little young for the 1990 title so do not know how it feels to be champions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand your stance sometimes then. I mean I was born in '79 and don't get angry about us not challenging City and Chelsea. Like it or not those two clubs have rocked this league massively.
Page 1 of 4