FSG are not shit

[Captain]

After the winning the title?

 

Ok.

[TheHowieLama]

[Iceman]

They arent proving to be all that but its a strange phenomenon when we are saying as fans "they have to go" or "get rid" when talking about the actual owners  like they are an underperforming left back.

 

They may well have to go, but it will be on their terms whether we like it or not 

 

Battered fan syndrome. Empty the stadium 2 home games running and you would see the power we really have. It's OUR fugging club, not some wankers with a yacht. We need to make our voices heard. This lay down and take a bumming shyte has got to stop. Damn right we can get rid. 

[SlugTrail]

Not yet, but it was only 1 (maybe) positive window, one just gone we still spent a decent amount I think.

 

The number is higher probably because of things like add ons, agent fees and maybe signing on fees too.

i think the article he quoted was trying to show our net spend on transfers compared to our rivals over the period of FSG ownership. the rest of the article showed MC with £600m+ MU with £500m+ chelsea with £300m+ and arse were about the same as us but spurs were about £20m.

[an tha]

They have sucked the life-force out of me and most of the fans that I know. I go into season after season just expecting virtually nothing to change even though you know that if we pushed the boat out slightly and showed a bit of ambition we could challenge. Yet each season we sit round with our thumbs up our arsed our rivals get further away from us and the teams below us gain momentum.

 

We are a laughing stock amongst most other fans. Shouldn't bother me but the fact that we still go on about how great we were years ago but just tread water and watch everything pass us by annoys me.

 

Yet we still have to pay top whack for tickets, more than the Mancs who actually win stuff. You have to scramble around to get tickets off other people because they won't expand the ground due to it not being financially worthwhile for them. But normal fans just get ignored. You've got two generations of fans - ones who used to go years ago but can't be arsed with the price or the hassle of tickets so just go and watch it in the pub and the younger generation who will never get to go regularly. Say what you want about Everton but they want to get the younger kids watching their team.

FSG don't give a shite about young local fans - they don't buy bag fulls of shite from Liverworld and 25 programmes to take home.

 

That all important spend per seat is what they care about and tourists/daytrippers/members who do about 2 games a season are where the money is at.

 

It must grate with them that there is 20,000 odd season ticket holders - i bet they would love to get those seats freed up...

[Russ Atmosphere]

OOTs oot

[Dave D]

Battered fan syndrome. Empty the stadium 2 home games running and you would see the power we really have. It's OUR fugging club, not some wankers with a yacht. We need to make our voices heard. This lay down and take a bumming shyte has got to stop. Damn right we can get rid. 

 

I hear you and the intentions are good, but I dont see us emptying the stadium. 

 

FSG are no doubt hindering us, you cant escape it, but some of this malaise is down to the management of Klopp and his team.

 

Klopp will get the benefit of the doubt, that Im sure.

 

A win Saturday would go along way to easing the pressure.

 

Lose (lose badly especially) then Im not sure who's head we are calling for 

[The Woolster]

i think the article he quoted was trying to show our net spend on transfers compared to our rivals over the period of FSG ownership. the rest of the article showed MC with £600m+ MU with £500m+ chelsea with £300m+ and arse were about the same as us but spurs were about £20m.

 

If a Liverpool journalist struggles to get our own transfer spending correct, why should I believe what they say about other clubs?

 

But the key issue here is how much more those clubs earn than us.

 

in 2015/16, our revenues were £302m

Chelsea's were £335m

Arsenal's were £354m

City's were £392m

Uts's were £515m

 

It should not be surprising that we are way behind Chelsea, City and Utd when it comes to spending money

[TheHowieLama]

It wouldn't be surprising if we were say 10% behind as the revenues figures you state show - it seems surprising that we would be 100% behind - correct?

[Russ Atmosphere]

Unless we can find a last minute Official Noodle Partner, Man Utd's revenues are going to humble us on Saturday.

[an tha]

Battered fan syndrome. Empty the stadium 2 home games running and you would see the power we really have. It's OUR fugging club, not some wankers with a yacht. We need to make our voices heard. This lay down and take a bumming shyte has got to stop. Damn right we can get rid.

The type of whoppers that largely fill Anfield now would mean you'll never get near emptying the place in protest.

 

In reality even though it got heard how many people actually walked out over the £77?

[TheHowieLama]

Unless we can find a last minute Official Noodle Partner, Man Utd's revenues are going to humble us on Saturday.

 

Outowned again.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Outowned again.

Par.

 

Our Premier league revenue inferiority means we must satisfy ourselves with smashing the financial unfortunates in european competition instead.

[The Woolster]

It wouldn't be surprising if we were say 10% behind as the revenues figures you state show - it seems surprising that we would be 100% behind - correct?

 

If we get over the leap of faith in believing the numbers given, then not necessarily. What a club has to spend on transfers comes after it has paid its costs such as wages, its academy, transportation, utilities, etc.

 

If you have 2 hypothetically identical teams, but one has got into Europe and the other hasn't, so team A's revenues are £300m, and team B's revenues are £330m. If the running costs for both teams is £270m, team A has £30m left over for transfers, team B has £60m.

 

Of course no team is identical, but it would not be surprising to such a difference.

[Bogman]

A fish rots from the head down.

[TheHowieLama]

I get that mate, and no one has increased revenues across the board more than FSG -- straight question to you:

 

Are we spending enough on players to compete?

[G Richards]

I don’t expect us to spend at the level of both Manchester clubs or Chelsea. Two are artificially inflated and have been for years, the other a financial juggernaut due to harnessing two decades of success in the Premier League era.

 

While I don’t expect us to spend as much as the three mentioned, we could probably spend more than we have been.

 

I see two groups of three in the top six, and our job is to try to finish top of the second group of three and edge ahead of Arsenal and Spurs. Arsenal already have their stadium and Spurs have been punching above their weight for a few years now and have a good team and manager.

 

We need to finish top four and use that as a base to try to challenge for the title.

 

If we want to suddenly compete, financially, with the three who are clearly above us, then we need new owners, and not just any owners, but owners who are willing to spend whatever it takes to get in there among the three.

 

We’ve had an iffy start to the season but it’s still early days.

[Thoth]

I honestly don't know how anyone can defend these cunts anymore, they are not interested in winning things unless it is at Fenway Park and we are just a little cash cow until someone stumps up the 1 billion plus to buy us and let them waltz into the sunset with a £700 plus million profit.

[The Woolster]

I get that mate, and no one has increased revenues across the board more than FSG -- straight question to you:

 

Are we spending enough on players to compete?

 

Obviously the more money you have to spend the better, but you've got to spend that money well, and I think we have spent enough to compete, I think we have spent relatively well and I think we are actually competing. It would have been great if we had got VvD and Keita in the summer just gone, but I don't think FSG were to blame for that.

[Ranxerox]

Their main achievement on the pitch since arriving is to take us below Spurs on regular and possibly permanent basis.

 

How anyone can defend their record in regards to winning on the pitch defies belief. It's been 7 years FFS it's obvious they have no ambition other than to stay competitive for a European spot.

[Guest Alex_K]

Obviously the more money you have to spend the better, but you've got to spend that money well, and I think we have spent enough to compete, I think we have spent relatively well and I think we are actually competing. It would have been great if we had got VvD and Keita in the summer just gone, but I don't think FSG were to blame for that.

 

3 assertions there -- first and third are objectively incorrect. The numbers show we haven't spent enough to compete. That's pretty categorical. 13/14 aside we have never competed top end of the table. Argument could be made we did first half of last season ... but the football from Aug. - Dec. was a glittering facade .. there was clearly no depth to sustain it. The fall off was not a surprise. 

 

2nd statement is arguably correct in recent seasons. We've spent little (net), but seen an upturn in results. The return we'll get on some of the buys (Coutinho; Mane; Firminho) covers the marginal amounts we'd lose on the players over 10 m. that havent worked out (not many).

 

The clear issue with FSG goes beyond the white/black view of transfer spend. It includes the category of player & wages demanded. No interest in buying established, top quality players at the wages they command. No interest in retaining established, top quality players at the wages they command. See Suarez, Coutinho, Sterling, Can heading out the door. We are the bargain-basement football club.

[Thoth]

I had high hopes when they took us over and it shows how far my own expectations have fallen that I got excited when we were promised the Pot 'o' Gold war chest in the summer.. Its like taking home Pam Anderson and waking up with Pam Ayers

[The Woolster]

3 assertions there -- first and third are objectively incorrect. The numbers show we haven't spent enough to compete. That's pretty categorical. 13/14 aside we have never competed top end of the table. Argument could be made we did first half of last season ... but the football from Aug. - Dec. was a glittering facade .. there was clearly no depth to sustain it. The fall off was not a surprise. 

 

2nd statement is arguably correct in recent seasons. We've spent little (net), but seen an upturn in results. The return we'll get on some of the buys (Coutinho; Mane; Firminho) covers the marginal amounts we'd lose on the players over 10 m. that havent worked out (not many).

 

The clear issue with FSG goes beyond the white/black view of transfer spend. It includes the category of player & wages demanded. No interest in buying established, top quality players at the wages they command. No interest in retaining established, top quality players at the wages they command. See Suarez, Coutinho, Sterling, Can heading out the door. We are the bargain-basement football club.

 

I would say that the use of the "I think" qualifier before each statement makes it more of an opinion than an assertion, no? Plenty of assertions in your post though

 

In terms of the first 'opinion', it is also my opinion that Spurs have been competing these past couple of seasons, yet they have spent less than us. So unless you believe that Spurs haven't been competing, how can it be objectively incorrect, that would not be logical?

 

As I said, you've got to spend that money well. At the start of FSG's reign, I don't think that they did, over the last 2 or 3 seasons I think they have in the main, bearing in mind that it is very hard to get every transfer right in a 2 or 3 year period. This is just my opinion though...

[an tha]

I honestly don't know how anyone can defend these cunts anymore, they are not interested in winning things unless it is at Fenway Park and we are just a little cash cow until someone stumps up the 1 billion plus to buy us and let them waltz into the sunset with a £700 plus million profit.

 

Pretty much sums it up for me.

[Bobby Hundreds]

They are under investing. It's that simple. If they just stepped up got deals done for top players and not baulked at wages the business side would go far better if it's alongside an exciting liverpool.

 

We've a top manager but they want blood from a stone. mignolet, gomez, TAA, karuis, Moreno, lovren.. how much did our entire back line cost? We wonder why it's hugely flawed. They are providing the funds the club deserves. Our spending doesn't seem to of improved in spite if the huge TV deals and getting champions league which the lack of before can no longer be used as an excuse.

 

Speculate and take educated risks. More money is wasted on shite.