PODCAST: Wolves 3 Liverpool 0 - Match Reaction

Would like to have had Paul on this, for balance.

RK is a bit of a pessimist, Usher is centrist and Paul is glass half full. Gives you the best range of Reds.

Jules risking the ire of the Darwin Fanclub in the first few minutes. A bold move around here. His name will be going on a list. 

Good pod again in depressing circumstances.

Once again, we conceed an early goal within minutes of the kick off albeit the 5th minute and then a 2nd, 7 minutes later. Just why is this happening so often?

The finishing is abysmal in fact, Id say it's unacceptable from supposed professional players.

For a long time during the covid season, Jurgen messed around playing emergency cb's in hendo and fabinho when the answer, Nat and Rhys was staring him in the face all the time. He needs to give some of the young lads in the U21s a go, it was an emergency again that gave Bajcetic his chance after all.

My fear is that Jurgen is slowly beginning to think he cannot resolve whatever the issues are why the team is playing so poorly.

Agree with Jules we're 18 - 24 months away from mounting titles challenges.

Agree with Dave, Ward should have been put on immediate gardening leave along with the others who want to fuck off.

Even Dele Alli has fallen off a cliff.

I think the idea of a partial sale is a 'strategic' partner would bring in extra money to the club after their initial investment such as opening new markets and 'income streams' whatever they may be?

20 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Agree with Jules we're 18 - 24 months away from mounting titles challenges.

What in the fucking championship?

Jesus lads, there's optimism and there's just being plain silly!

21 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

Nat and Rhys was staring him in the face all the time.

I rate Williams less than I do Nat, and I don't rate him particularly highly either. That said, if we're going to make a change to a more defensively solid line up then it's a no brainer that one or both of these lads need to be involved. They're both good professionals and whilst nowhere near world class they would now in my opinion bring a solidity to the defence we are currently missing!

I enjoy these,I find them cathartic. But this one I can’t bring myself to listen to. We are playing so bad.

8 minutes ago, Reckoner said:

I enjoy these,I find them cathartic. But this one I can’t bring myself to listen to. We are playing so bad.

I get it. If I wasn't having to be on it and edit it I wouldn't be listening either. 

My full match report was: 

I didn't go to the game. I didn't pay to watch it. I don't subscribe. I didn't go to the pub to watch it and buy a pint to watch it with. 

I still want my money back.

The end.

2 hours ago, Kevin D said:

Would like to have had Paul on this, for balance.

 

RK is a bit of a pessimist, Usher is centrist and Paul is glass half full. Gives you the best range of Reds.

Paul doesn't do streams so didn't see the game. He would have been on otherwise as his delusional optimistic, approach is needed currently. Hopefully he can come on after the derby.

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

My full match report was: 

 

I didn't go to the game. I didn't pay to watch it. I don't subscribe. I didn't go to the pub to watch it and buy it. 

 

I still want my money back.

 

The end.

Thing is, it's not actually possible to pay to watch it, which is ridiculous in this day and age. The authorities constantly kicking off about illegal streams, but without them there is literally no other way to watch games in the UK if you don't have a match ticket.

8 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

Thing is, it's not actually possible to pay to watch it, which is ridiculous in this day and age. The authorities constantly kicking off about illegal streams, but without them there is literally no other way to watch games in the UK if you don't have a match ticket.

It's the PL's lesser 13 clubs now newcastle are monied, who are stopping this because the 'bigger' clubs will get more money because of their bigger fanbase, blah, blah, blah.

10 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

Paul doesn't do streams so didn't see the game. He would have been on otherwise as his delusional optimistic, approach is needed currently. Hopefully he can come on after the derby.

You don’t send him one in the group chat?

As a teacher, I was already jealous that he only worked 5 days a year; but now that I know he doesn’t spend his Saturday’s clicking tiny x’s off the screen while listening to Matt Holland commentate, I’m raging.

1 hour ago, Kevin D said:

You don’t send him one in the group chat?

 

As a teacher, I was already jealous that he only worked 5 days a year; but now that I know he doesn’t spend his Saturday’s clicking tiny x’s off the screen while listening to Matt Holland commentate, I’m raging.

Is there any more depressing way to spend a Saturday than listening to Jim Beglin as Trent takes 20 minutes deciding where to put a throw in, only to give it to a player who can’t really be arsed tackling and passively watches some shit team steamroll us. 
But wait, what’s this? Singles in my area want to meet ME?

RK sure does like a good metaphor 

3 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

Good pod again in depressing circumstances.

 

Once again, we conceed an early goal within minutes of the kick off albeit the 5th minute and then a 2nd, 7 minutes later. Just why is this happening so often?

 

The finishing is abysmal in fact, Id say it's unacceptable from supposed professional players.

 

For a long time during the covid season, Jurgen messed around playing emergency cb's in hendo and fabinho when the answer, Nat and Rhys was staring him in the face all the time. He needs to give some of the young lads in the U21s a go, it was an emergency again that gave Bajcetic his chance after all.

 

My fear is that Jurgen is slowly beginning to think he cannot resolve whatever the issues are why the team is playing so poorly.

 

Agree with Jules we're 18 - 24 months away from mounting titles challenges.

 

Agree with Dave, Ward should have been put on immediate gardening leave along with the others who want to fuck off.

 

Even Dele Alli has fallen off a cliff.

 

I think the idea of a partial sale is a 'strategic' partner would bring in extra money to the club after their initial investment such as opening new markets and 'income streams' whatever they may be?

I’d be happy to see Big Nat in the team, especially next Monday. We could do with a bit of no-nonsense, decisive defending. Too many of the first team seem to think tracking, tackling, blocking crosses and shots is beneath them, with the exception of Konate. 
Can’t think of many (any?) in the U21s who look worthy of promotion. Doak maybe, the other better players are on loan. 
The problems with the first team are replicated throughout the club….. loads of injuries and a lack of physicality and athleticism. The junior teams, especially the U18s are nearly always outmuscled by their opponents, even though they’re often technically superior.

1 hour ago, Reckoner said:

Is there any more depressing way to spend a Saturday than listening to Jim Beglin as Trent takes 20 minutes deciding where to put a throw in, only to give it to a player who can’t really be arsed tackling and passively watches some shit team steamroll us. 
But wait, what’s this? Singles in my area want to meet ME?

You’re a handsome fella, of course they want to meet you. Her resemblance to Alexis Texas(who I have no knowledge of) is a lovely coincidence.

If FSG sold 25 percent of the club, the money would go to them, and not be reinvested. If it was done as a capital increase , the money would go to the club, but FGS would own a smaller share. Although I think only a portion of the new capital could be spent to strengthen the team, in proportion to the revenues, as per the FFP rules. Revenues would have to be artificially inflated before that, if we are already spending close to what we are allowed to, like through fake advertising or sponsorship deals. But it would help if we are spending much less than we are allowed to, for example, because we are investing in stadium improvements or the new training ground.

5 hours ago, SasaS said:

If FSG sold 25 percent of the club, the money would go to them, and not be reinvested. If it was done as a capital increase , the money would go to the club, but FGS would own a smaller share. Although I think only a portion of the new capital could be spent to strengthen the team, in proportion to the revenues, as per the FFP rules. Revenues would have to be artificially inflated before that, if we are already spending close to what we are allowed to, like through fake advertising or sponsorship deals. But it would help if we are spending much less than we are allowed to, for example, because we are investing in stadium improvements or the new training ground.

So 'investment' basically does fuck all to help us then. Just gives FSG a nice windfall that they can't put back in for FFP reasons. 

4 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

So 'investment' basically does fuck all to help us then. Just gives FSG a nice windfall that they can't put back in for FFP reasons. 

Well. it depends, most people seem to be arguing our "net spend" is below average, since we are one of the richest by revenue, it would suggest we are spending on something else (stadium, training ground, too big a wage bill or somebody is indeed finding ways to take money out of the club) and there would be ways (space under the FFP) to spend it on the team, if someone was to invest as a capital increase (FSG would agree to that instead of selling part of the club - if they just sell some of their share, I think this is the same as selling Red Sox for example - that money is not going back to LFC, why would it, that would be (part of) their return on investment as investors in "sports franchises").   

On the other hand if we do have a "war chest" for the summer of lets say 150 million to spend and take some players off the wage bill (Ox, Keita) and this is how much we can spend under the FFP rules, I don't see what would the investment bring us.

They had the perfect opportunity to put money in if they wanted to when they got a huge wad off Redbird around the same time as FFP was relaxed due to Covid losses. They chose not to.

8 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

 

It's the PL's lesser 13 clubs now newcastle are monied, who are stopping this because the 'bigger' clubs will get more money because of their bigger fanbase, blah, blah, blah.

 

 

The whole tv deal thing is fucked - the PL is fucked without the current model, the "lesser" clubs fucked if it went to an every club for themselves model.

But how much longer is the current model sustainable?

https://www.thisisanfield.com/2023/02/why-new-redbird-investment-would-be-for-fsg-not-liverpool-fc/

Enjoyed how negative it was, good stuff.

Sullying.

12 hours ago, Moo said:

They had the perfect opportunity to put money in if they wanted to when they got a huge wad off Redbird around the same time as FFP was relaxed due to Covid losses. They chose not to.

I understand the logic for that though. I don't like it as a fan but I understand from their perspective why they did that, and I'd rather that than them taking out big payments every year like the Glazers are doing. They wanted some return on their initial investment but don't take dividends (right?), so selling off a piece and trousering the cash allows them to do that while still retaining the bulk of the asset to sell off at some point in the future when they think its at maximum value.

This is different because the premise they are selling to everyone is "we need investment to compete in the transfer market" when really investment in that context is really not going to do much (anything?) to benefit the club at all. It'll most likely just go into FSG coffers to do whatever they like with it.

A partial sell off benefits them a lot. I don't see how there's any benefit to us though, but maybe that's because I'm missing something. Didn't Redbird invest in FSG rather than LFC? Maybe if new investment is specifically just about buying a piece of the club rather than of FSG that helps us in some way, but I'm struggling to see how.

21 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

 

It's the PL's lesser 13 clubs now newcastle are monied, who are stopping this because the 'bigger' clubs will get more money because of their bigger fanbase, blah, blah, blah.

 

 

It's because of lower league clubs. The belief is that league two attendances, for example, would suffer if there were PL games on telly at 3pm. 

9 minutes ago, dave u said:

 

I understand the logic for that though. I don't like it as a fan but I understand from their perspective why they did that, and I'd rather that than them taking out big payments every year like the Glazers are doing. They wanted some return on their initial investment but don't take dividends (right?), so selling off a piece and trousering the cash allows them to do that while still retaining the bulk of the asset to sell off at some point in the future when they think its at maximum value.

 

This is different because the premise they are selling to everyone is "we need investment to compete in the transfer market" when really investment in that context is really not going to do much (anything?) to benefit the club at all. It'll most likely just go into FSG coffers to do whatever they like with it.

 

A partial sell off benefits them a lot. I don't see how there's any benefit to us though, but maybe that's because I'm missing something. Didn't Redbird invest in FSG rather than LFC? Maybe if new investment is specifically just about buying a piece of the club rather than of FSG that helps us in some way, but I'm struggling to see how.

 

Most partial investors will want to see a business plan showing how their investment is going to increase in value. You’d expect that business plan to set out details of necessary expenditure by all the owners to achieve that. The success of the team is integral to value growth so it’s likely that any deal will include provision for strengthening the team to ensure regular CL qualification as a minimum.