Is there no alternative to FSG on the horizon?

[Jose Jones]

I think you are mischarachterising the arguments really Neil. I think most people would have been fairly happy had FSG - or another owner - had spent big initially to get us straight up there, then had the club reap the benefit of the extra revenue that success would have brought.

 

I also think the sugar daddy analogy is bang on and only brought out because when a lot of people are hoping for a new owner it is because they entirely want us to be bought by a filthy rich egotist but have either resigned themselves to thinking that is the only way we can compete, or don't care.

[SlugTrail]

I can't say I am fussed either way really, I like what FSG are doing , growing revenues to spend on the team so that we can become more successful, this is a very long term plan which is why they have made sure we target the best young players. But at the same time I do look at City and Chelsea with a bit of the green eyed monster, I want to have the best players in their primes playing for us.

 

I want to be one of those clubs that real and Barcelona worry about us stealing their players.

[Captain]

FSG lucked out by following the cunts they did. Take them out of the scenario, and I think there would be a lot more fans questioning where we are going and how we are going to get there.

 

I'm not so sure. We're not going anywhere and most people know it.

 

FSG's MO is to run the club within it's means. Which I don't think many have a problem with. Of course, FSG have illusions (at least publicly) about taking us to the top that way. Something I doubt any Liverpool fan buys into.

[ratcatcher]

I could understand the distaste when Abramovich came on the scene, because his wealth gave Chelsea a clear advantage over all their rivals. Ditto for City when they took spending to a new level beyond that, so that even Abramovich had to play catch up.

 

But if we were bought by a wealthy owner who was prepared to put lots of his own money into strengthening the team, it wouldn't be the same scenario as with either of those clubs, as we wouldn't be outspending the rest of the league the way they did. We'd be up against four other very wealthy teams in the contest for the title, and so we'd still need to rely on our ingenuity, our competence in the transfer market and our manager's ability in order to succeed. If we won the title it would be earned and deserved, not bought.

 

The same would apply to the CL, where we'd be up against other super-rich sides with vastly talented squads, plus plenty of other good teams who would be more than capable of knocking us out if we didn't perform at our best.

 

 

It's not just terminology. It's a loaded and misleading phrase that's more often than not used in a derogatory way. (Not by Jose in this instance I should say, but his use of it set me off.) It's usually used to invoke an owner like Abramovich or Mansour who pours millions upon millions of his own money into the club ad infinitum, meaning the club can't or doesn't need to become self-sufficient from its own revenue. And it's inevitably brought into the conversation whenever someone suggests that they'd want an owner to invest their own money in the playing squad, even if it's in the form of a long term loan that they'll get back.

 

I don't want us to be like Chelsea or City. I want us to be self-sufficient and compete regularly for the top prizes without our owner having to keep dipping into his own pocket. But I think that to get to that stage, where we're re-established as CL regulars, we'd need to spend more than FSG are prepared to spend, which means we'd need an owner who's prepared to put his own cash into the side for a period until we get there.

 

As soon as this suggestion is made though, it's only a matter of time before someone comes in with the sugar daddy phrase. It's the FF version of Godwin's Law.

 

Some of the stuff you say I fundementally disagree with but others, I agree with you. But, in my opinion, 'sugar daddy' is just a phrase like calling someone a cunt.

 

I really dont understand why you regail the people who use the term so much as you constantly say you dont want the club to go that way. I also think you're looking at it through rose tinted glasses when you say we wouldnt have been outspending the rest of the league like they did. Come on, of course we would. You cant insulate spending against 4 clubs from spending against the rest of the league. Im no chelsea historian but they were closer to titles and had cup wins pre abramovic so this idea they were somehow spending in competition with PL bottom feeders is a bit lax.

 

I dont think there's an earthly the club can now re establish itself as perennial title challengers or CL winners given the financial landscape in front of us. The financial advantage teams like city enjoy is growing all the time. I mean they're ahead of us in the football rich list. I think the highest we are ever going to get in that list now is 7th, maybe 6th at a push.

 

Its interesting to note that once mansoor turned up and abramovic realised he didnt have the deepest pockets in the PL any more, he was suddenly in favour of FFP.

 

Despite that, chelsea can still outspend us with a smaller stadium (currently) because they can charge london prices for tickets and hospitality. There's also the little question of them winning a few titles and the CL in the last 10 years plus being regular title challengers and CL participants.

 

Its all pretty hypothetical about if we'd been bought by a wealthy owner instead of FSG or the two cowboys because it didnt happen. I didnt want it but with hindsight, Id have been wrong as in all probability, we would, hopefully, have been more successful and won a couple of titles.

[Neil G]

I think you are mischarachterising the arguments really Neil. I think most people would have been fairly happy had FSG - or another owner - had spent big initially to get us straight up there, then had the club reap the benefit of the extra revenue that success would have brought.

I also think the sugar daddy analogy is bang on and only brought out because when a lot of people are hoping for a new owner it is because they entirely want us to be bought by a filthy rich egotist but have either resigned themselves to thinking that is the only way we can compete, or don't care.

I don't think I'm mischaracterising anything, I'm just relating how the discussion invariably unfolds in my experience. I'm sure most people would be happy if we'd got the kind of owner I was asking for, but whenever I actually suggest it it's not long before someone uses the words 'sugar daddy' in reference to it.

 

I acknowledge that some on here would be happy with an Abramovich type owner, and I've no problem with the sugar daddy label being used there as it's accurate. But what I and others are asking for is very different from that, and it annoys me when our position is misrepresented.

[Neil G]

Some of the stuff you say I fundementally disagree with but others, I agree with you. But, in my opinion, 'sugar daddy' is just a phrase like calling someone a cunt.

 

I really dont understand why you regail the people who use the term so much as you constantly say you dont want the club to go that way. I also think you're looking at it through rose tinted glasses when you say we wouldnt have been outspending the rest of the league like they did. Come on, of course we would. You cant insulate spending against 4 clubs from spending against the rest of the league. Im no chelsea historian but they were closer to titles and had cup wins pre abramovic so this idea they were somehow spending in competition with PL bottom feeders is a bit lax.

Like I said to Jose, I've no problem with people using the phrase when it's accurate, i.e. if people really are asking for an owner who'll personally bankroll signings season after season. What I'm suggesting is fundamentally different from that, so I get pissed off when people use that phrase to refer to it, especially when it's accompanied by sermons on how we all want the club to live within its means and how having such an owner would be a betrayal of the club's ethos.

 

By outspending the rest of the league, I meant all the other 19 teams including the title contenders, not just the 15 or so also rans. Obviously we would be outspending them, we do that already.

[Philbert]

I think a lot of us wouldn't be having this discussion if we'd been good in the transfer market. Whenever this club has a bit of momentum we always seem to fuck it up with utter shite transfers. If we hadn't wasted tons of cash on the likes of Andy Carroll, Downing, Adam, Borini, Balotelli etc and bought players who made a significant impact we would be praising them for backing the manager.

 

They have done something that no one at the club has done for years and finally committed to expanding Anfield and have increase the clubs revenue. Under Moores we were run like a tinpot back alley company and the two cowboys completely fucked the club. We could have gone the way of Leeds or Portsmouth but we've bounced back and we nearly won the league last season. That's progress in itself.

 

They aren't without their faults though, I'd still like to see them commit to building the Anfield Road End, the fact that we went two January windows without bringing anyone in and the long drawn out negotiations we seem to get into when signing various players. I still think the transfer committee is a pile if wank and some scouts seem to have the easiest job in the world.

 

The only buyer I could ever see us getting is some rich Kuwaiti or Qatari consortium as i doubt another American group woukd buy us but at the moment no one seems to be out there.

[Philbert]

Spot on re lack of success in the transfer market. I think our failure rate is embarrassingly high. FSG provide the funds but if the transfer committee, Rodgers and Ayre screw it up it's not the sole and direct fault of FSG.

[ratcatcher]

Spot on re lack of success in the transfer market. I think our failure rate is embarrassingly high. FSG provide the funds but if the transfer committee, Rodgers and Ayre screw it up it's not the sole and direct fault of FSG.

 

I think our shiteness in the transfer market is a bit over egged. People make judgements too soon.

 

chelsea have fucked off shurrle, de bruyne and salah recently and Im no expert on their dealings. united's current buys under vangaal arent exactly pulling up trees.

 

Of our this season buys which lots of people seemed to write off earlier, people are now raving about can. markovic has shown distinct improvement, so has balloteli and lalanna. Lambert was only ever going to be a squad filler. Only lovren is looking poor.

 

In previous seasons we bought young lads like llori as a type of insurance for if they come good. We've a few out on loan like tiexerra (sorry spelling) who are getting good reports A bit of patience is the key.

[ritchie]

I think our shiteness in the transfer market is a bit over egged. People make judgements too soon.

 

chelsea have fucked off shurrle, de bruyne and salah recently and Im no expert on their dealings. united's current buys under vangaal arent exactly pulling up trees.

 

Of our this season buys which lots of people seemed to write off earlier, people are now raving about can. markovic has shown distinct improvement, so has balloteli and lalanna. Lambert was only ever going to be a squad filler. Only lovren is looking poor.

 

In previous seasons we bought young lads like llori as a type of insurance for if they come good. We've a few out on loan like tiexerra (sorry spelling) who are getting good reports A bit of patience is the key.

 

Our biggest problem with transfers is the strategy is simply appalling. Look at three signings in the summer. We replace Luis Suarez with Mario Balotelli. You'd struggle to get a bigger contrast in playing styles, even if both are enigmatic. Alexis Sanchez was first choice and fair enough because he's as close to Suarez as you could probably get but how can your next choice then be Balotelli? 

 

Then Lovren. We spent £18m the year before on a much better left sided centre half. What would possess anyone to want to spend another £20m on another left sided centre half a year after? Even if Lovren was actually a bit better than Sakho it's dreadful waste of funds on Sakho. The fact he's crap just makes it beyond pathetic.

 

Then you look at Lallana. At £10m he's a decent squad player but why would you pay £23m for someone who is a big downgrade on Sterling and Coutinho in the positions he can play? It's not like he's used to give them a rest either as Sterling and Coutinho have both been flogged to death game after game after game when they're fit because Rodgers doesn't rotate. So what was the point in signing him? Then you can add paying £10m on a goalkeeper who can't kick a ball when it's a top requirement of the manager in a goalkeeper to be good with his feet. It's beyond belief how inept we can be with transfers.

 

When we get it right it's great. Suarez and Sturridge almost won us the league and were great buys. Henderson contributed heavily and has proved a good buy. Coutinho was a good buy and i'm sure Can and one or two others from the summer will be good players for us.

 

Some signings just won't work out, you have to accept that. Morientes for example made great sense at the time but it just didn't happen. Harry Kewell another one or arguably Robbie Keane. What annoys me is when we make these big signings that make no sense whatsoever from day one. The strategy has to be right or the success rate is a lot lower.

 

Chelsea have flogged the likes of Luiz, Mata, De Bruyne and Schurrle for big profits as well. How much are we going to get for the likes of Lallana, Lovren and Balotelli? A lot less than we paid for them.

[Neil G]

Our biggest problem with transfers is the strategy is simply appalling. Look at three signings in the summer. We replace Luis Suarez with Mario Balotelli. You'd struggle to get a bigger contrast in playing styles, even if both are enigmatic. Alexis Sanchez was first choice and fair enough because he's as close to Suarez as you could probably get but how can your next choice then be Balotelli? 

 

Then Lovren. We spent £18m the year before on a much better left sided centre half. What would possess anyone to want to spend another £20m on another left sided centre half a year after? Even if Lovren was actually a bit better than Sakho it's dreadful waste of funds on Sakho. The fact he's crap just makes it beyond pathetic.

 

Then you look at Lallana. At £10m he's a decent squad player but why would you pay £23m for someone who is a big downgrade on Sterling and Coutinho in the positions he can play? It's not like he's used to give them a rest either as Sterling and Coutinho have both been flogged to death game after game after game when they're fit because Rodgers doesn't rotate. So what was the point in signing him? Then you can add paying £10m on a goalkeeper who can't kick a ball when it's a top requirement of the manager in a goalkeeper to be good with his feet. It's beyond belief how inept we can be with transfers.

 

When we get it right it's great. Suarez and Sturridge almost won us the league and were great buys. Henderson contributed heavily and has proved a good buy. Coutinho was a good buy and i'm sure Can and one or two others from the summer will be good players for us.

 

Some signings just won't work out, you have to accept that. Morientes for example made great sense at the time but it just didn't happen. Harry Kewell another one or arguably Robbie Keane. What annoys me is when we make these big signings that make no sense whatsoever from day one. The strategy has to be right or the success rate is a lot lower.

Spot on that. People keep saying that all clubs make mistakes in the transfer market as if that mitigates the ones we make, but some of the decisions we've made have been indefensible regardless of what anyone else does.

 

If we'd signed players for positions that needed strengthening, and who we genuinely believed had the qualities required to fit into the team well, and they then didn't work out, that's just part and parcel of football. What we've been doing is sheer incompetence.

[ritchie]

Spot on that. People keep saying that all clubs make mistakes in the transfer market as if that mitigates the ones we make, but some of the decisions we've made have been indefensible regardless of what anyone else does.

 

If we'd signed players for positions that needed strengthening, and who we genuinely believed had the qualities required to fit into the team well, and they then didn't work out, that's just part and parcel of football. What we've been doing is sheer incompetence.

 

We make transfer decisions that are so bad that people should be fired for sheer incompetence for making the decision because the players are such a poor fit from day one. And in one case they were (Comolli for Carroll because of the siz). 

 

I'd add the Balotelli, Mignolet, Lallana and Lovren signings into that category just from the last year or so. Criminal waste of money. Not bad players but strategy wise, style wise and in terms of transfer fee a shocking waste of money.

[xerxes]

Spot on that.

Agreed.

 

And that is where the FSD model fails. Ayre is less business experienced than FSG, Rodgers has less PL experience than them, Pascoe has less experience than Rodgers.

 

Since FSG arrived we have consistently failed to secure the best. Instead people who are alright have done alright.

[ratcatcher]

Our biggest problem with transfers is the strategy is simply appalling. Look at three signings in the summer. We replace Luis Suarez with Mario Balotelli. You'd struggle to get a bigger contrast in playing styles, even if both are enigmatic. Alexis Sanchez was first choice and fair enough because he's as close to Suarez as you could probably get but how can your next choice then be Balotelli? 

 

Then Lovren. We spent £18m the year before on a much better left sided centre half. What would possess anyone to want to spend another £20m on another left sided centre half a year after? Even if Lovren was actually a bit better than Sakho it's dreadful waste of funds on Sakho. The fact he's crap just makes it beyond pathetic.

 

Then you look at Lallana. At £10m he's a decent squad player but why would you pay £23m for someone who is a big downgrade on Sterling and Coutinho in the positions he can play? It's not like he's used to give them a rest either as Sterling and Coutinho have both been flogged to death game after game after game when they're fit because Rodgers doesn't rotate. So what was the point in signing him? Then you can add paying £10m on a goalkeeper who can't kick a ball when it's a top requirement of the manager in a goalkeeper to be good with his feet. It's beyond belief how inept we can be with transfers.

 

When we get it right it's great. Suarez and Sturridge almost won us the league and were great buys. Henderson contributed heavily and has proved a good buy. Coutinho was a good buy and i'm sure Can and one or two others from the summer will be good players for us.

 

Some signings just won't work out, you have to accept that. Morientes for example made great sense at the time but it just didn't happen. Harry Kewell another one or arguably Robbie Keane. What annoys me is when we make these big signings that make no sense whatsoever from day one. The strategy has to be right or the success rate is a lot lower.

 

Chelsea have flogged the likes of Luiz, Mata, De Bruyne and Schurrle for big profits as well. How much are we going to get for the likes of Lallana, Lovren and Balotelli? A lot less than we paid for them.

 

The strategy isnt 'appalling.'

 

You forget chelsea can go shopping in the equivalent of the mercedes garage. We're shopping in the ford garage most of the time and virtually in the second hand market at that.

 

You suggest we get it wrong more often than not. I disagree if you look at it over a longer period. People were writing off Can, lallana, moreno, manquillo, markovic, lambert etc too early.

 

As Ive said, Lambert was always a squad filler. Manquillo is on a 2 year loan with the option to buy or send back. It doesnt matter whether you think lallana is a £10m player or not, his market value was considerably higher. Southampton said pay it or fuck off.

 

Some people are even fucking moaning about Coutinho for fucks sake.

[billypilgrimnz]

 It doesnt matter whether you think lallana is a £10m player or not, his market value was considerably higher. Southampton said pay it or fuck off.

 

 

So we should have fucked off then. Pretty straightforward, no?

[Neil G]

The strategy isnt 'appalling.'

 

You forget chelsea can go shopping in the equivalent of the mercedes garage. We're shopping in the ford garage most of the time and virtually in the second hand market at that.

 

You suggest we get it wrong more often than not. I disagree if you look at it over a longer period. People were writing off Can, lallana, moreno, manquillo, markovic, lambert etc too early.

 

As Ive said, Lambert was always a squad filler. Manquillo is on a 2 year loan with the option to buy or send back. It doesnt matter whether you think lallana is a £10m player or not, his market value was considerably higher. Southampton said pay it or fuck off.

 

Some people are even fucking moaning about Coutinho for fucks sake.

You're missing Ritchie's point. The problem isn't that the majority of our signings aren't good enough. It's that we too often spend big money on the wrong kind of player to begin with. That's why he referred to the strategy.

 

We sign players who are patently not suited to the type of football we want to play, and we sign players in positions where we're already well stocked while weaknesses in other areas of the pitch remain unaddressed.

[ratcatcher]

You're missing Ritchie's point. The problem isn't that the majority of our signings aren't good enough. It's that we too often spend big money on the wrong kind of player to begin with. That's why he referred to the strategy.

 

We sign players who are patently not suited to the type of football we want to play, and we sign players in positions where we're already well stocked while weaknesses in other areas of the pitch remain unaddressed.

 

Im not missing any point.

 

There's this myth about too often spending big on the wrong kind of player. Its football life. All managers buy players that dont turn out. Even Liverpool managers do it.

 

Ive already rhymed off a number of chelsea players they binned off. I dont know much about their dealings but if I did, I could probably rattle off another half dozen players they've spent big on then moved them on as the wrong type of player.

 

Same for united, same for arse and probably the same now for city.

 

People run out this 'we cant afford to make these mistakes.' Guess what, the only way to ensure this doent happen is buy no one but that's not a realistic option.

 

As I said before, some people had written off all our this seasons signings not long ago but are keeping their heads down now mignolet, can, moreno and even balotelli find form.

 

If we only sign the one kind of player that 'fits our style' people then say the manager has signed only one type of player. There just no win because some people are always moving the goal posts.

[Neil G]

Im not missing any point.

There's this myth about too often spending big on the wrong kind of player. Its football life. All managers buy players that dont turn out. Even Liverpool managers do it.

I already said, players that don't work out are to be expected. The problem goes beyond that. The wrong kind of players means players like Balotelli who the manager and scouts should be able to see don't fit in to the kind of football the manager wants the team to play before they're signed. And it also means players who do turn out to be good but that we don't need, who are signed instead of players in positions where we do need strengthening.

 

These are basic mistakes, and just because other teams might make them it doesn't excuse us doing it.

[ratcatcher]

I already said, players that don't work out are to be expected. The problem goes beyond that. The wrong kind of players means players like Balotelli who the manager and scouts should be able to see don't fit in to the kind of football the manager wants the team to play before they're signed. And it also means players who do turn out to be good but that we don't need, who are signed instead of players in positions where we do need strengthening.

 

These are basic mistakes, and just because other teams might make them it doesn't excuse us doing it.

 

Balotelli was bought to add cover. We also bought him as we knew we'd get most of our money back after amortisation of the fee. Who else was available that late in the window? There's another myth that transfers can be worked out in a few days. Some can be but rarely high profile ones.

 

Id rather we signed a few players who dont conform to the pattern so they can give us something different if the need arises.

 

Its different opinions I suppose. Even rodgers seems to be acknowledging balotelli can fit in with his overall plans with his 'the penny's dropped' comment.

[Joey8FrogsLegs]

Lovren looks like an expensive mistake, and Balotelli was a shocking move.

 

Apart from that our failings in the transfer market are very exaggerated. Moreno, Can and Markovic look like brilliant signings to me. I also have high hopes for Origi.

[Bradderzzz]

Someone was moaning about Coutinho? Really? His value for money is up there with Suarez.

 

£8.5 million quid.

[Jose Jones]

I don't think I'm mischaracterising anything, I'm just relating how the discussion invariably unfolds in my experience. I'm sure most people would be happy if we'd got the kind of owner I was asking for, but whenever I actually suggest it it's not long before someone uses the words 'sugar daddy' in reference to it.

 

I acknowledge that some on here would be happy with an Abramovich type owner, and I've no problem with the sugar daddy label being used there as it's accurate. But what I and others are asking for is very different from that, and it annoys me when our position is misrepresented.

 

Fair enough.  Obviously I haven't been making your point, so haven't been in the position to be pissed off!

I reckon most would agree that:

1. Majority fan ownership (professionally managed)

2. Benevolent long term Liverpool fan owner (professionally managed)

 

Would both be better than the FSG model.  Apart from all the tory voters who think the fans can't be trusted and need a good firm hand from a rich man to keep them in line.

 

I'm sure FSG want to win and be popular with the fans, but love of the club and winning trophies isn't the reason for their ownership.

[xerxes]

There's another myth that transfers can be worked out in a few days. Some can ...

So it's not a myth then.

[ratcatcher]

So it's not a myth then.

 

So you believe there are only absolutes?

[ratcatcher]

These are basic mistakes, and just because other teams might make them it doesn't excuse us doing it.

 

By your own admission it suggests we are no better or worse than other clubs in that respect.

 

So why do you think we must be some sort of special case that excepts us from making the mistakes others make?