FSG are not shit

[No2]

'We're a selling club now'. 'Henry's not interested'. It's wank.

Henry is not interested though. I actually like that he's stopped pretending, he gets that we see bullshit and doesn't attempt to throw it as us.

 

He's a middle aged / old man who never seen a game of football until he signed a cheque here. If I bought a baseball team as an investment I'd find it hard to feign interest other than to want the team to grow in value.

[Moo]

'We're a selling club now'. 'Henry's not interested'. It's wank.

Honestly, I think you're in denial.

a/ we sell our best players regularly under FSG, therfore we're currently a selling club

b/ Henry is not interested in the club or it's support which I'm sure is the type of interest the previous poster was referring to, he's only interested in the value of the asset

[TheHowieLama]

It has nothing to do with FSG - it has been that way since Macca left.

It just feels better to say it is their fault.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Honestly, I think you're in denial.

a/ we sell our best players regularly under FSG, therfore we're currently a selling club

b/ Henry is not interested in the club or it's support which I'm sure is the type of interest the previous poster was referring to, he's only interested in the value of the asset

As I said, absolute wank.

[BeefStroganoff]

And with this Januarys stance by the club with Coutinho, whats to stop Mane and Salah, downing tools and going no matter what contract they are on? All you need to do is go on strike it seems.

[BeefStroganoff]

14 posts ( 8 in the last 30 minutes)  - 5 years.

 

Yesssss...I like Strokemeoff

Im going back into hibernation now, see you in 2023 when I fully expect a league challenge.

[Numero Veinticinco]

And with this Januarys stance by the club with Coutinho, whats to stop Mane and Salah, downing tools and going no matter what contract they are on? All you need to do is go on strike it seems.

Is that not true of every player who has forced his way out of any club?

[TheHowieLama]

@ Strokemeoff  I love you man

[Chip Butty]

All clubs are a selling club, well probably bar two in Spain and this air of us actively looking too sell is far from the truth. Many clubs make many enquiries about players, yes shocker, ourselves included, but what is the trigger for a sale is the player, if he wants to move, why keep him, add to that the mischievous antics of their agents and you have managers and owners weighing it all up and deciding is it worth keeping a player if he wants gone, all clubs operate like this. We fell foul in Coutinho and used it to our favour with Keita. It's modern football which, sadly enough, is now a business. People should be thankful that chairmen/owners don'the stick their oar in. They should be their to sign the cheques and nothing else.

[The Woolster]

I don't think we would have a hundred and fifty-six page thread if these issues weren't contentious.

People, particularly fan(atic)s, have cognitive biases which are very hard to overcome, which can mean that logic flies out the window. But mainly, I think people like arguing on the internet.

 

I would certainly argue that they have not invested enough to be successful, because we haven't been successful.  Of course, that depends on what you define as "success".  If it's a top four finish then I suppose we have been relatively successful, although not to the extent that we were before FSG acquired the club.  If you define it as trophies then we're definitely worse off under their ownership, to date.

Covered by response to Scott and others. Its about how you invest that money.

 

With regard to the competitive environment, Man City and Chelsea were already in the hands of rich owners prior to FSG's arrival.  The only other club that has emerged as part of the "big six" is Tottenham.  So I don't think that's a valid excuse - it's something Rafa had to live with in his final years of being manager here.

City were a different beast then, they were spending big to get themselves up there, but 2010/11 was the first time they had finished in the top 4 and they had Adam fucking Johnson playing over 40 times for them

 

With genuine respect to your views, I think you look at things too much from an accounting perspective and not through the eyes of a fan.

I try to look at things, on any subject, with a big picture point of view and use as much information as I can to form any opinions I have, but will readily admit that I 'probably' see things in a more probabilistic view than others, which means I am often in the grey zone rather than seeing things black or white.

 

If I mention accounts a lot in relation to FSG, its because I have a bit of knowledge on how to analyse companies and their accounts, and lots of people say stuff which just isn't true, so I try to let people know what the accounts say so they can make their own mind up. 

 

But my views on most other things related to LFC are not based on an accounting perspective, I'm not even a fucking accountant!

[BeefStroganoff]

@ Strokemeoff  I love you man

 

Thanks man. Long time lurker. Loooong time.

[Red74]

Another thing that pisses me off with them is not doing the anny road because the costs don’t add up and we won’t pay the increase in prices to pay for it.

 

We’ve been told that the new stand was going to cost £50m (we always get to know the costs of what we do. Main stand, Kirkby upgrade etc,) yet I read an article the other week saying the mancs are gonna add on to there old stand to bring it in line with the rest of the ground and not a mention of the costs.

 

Apparently, the new Anny Road was going to hold 18,000 seats.

 

Even If we only play league games and have no Home cup games or Europe, that stand would still generate 18,000 x £40 average per ticket = £720,000 per match. X 19 games = £13,680,000 per season. It’d be paid off in 5 years with constant income that’s more or less guaranteed.

 

How quick were they wanting this paying off cos I can’t see how this couldn’t be a money spinner for them seeing as it more than pays for itself and it certainly wouldn’t reduce the sale price of the club.

 

Always an excuse with them for doing nothing.

[Chip Butty]

Apparently it wasn't, the targets been 60,000 possibly 62,000, which means at best an additional 8000 to be the source to cover the cost. Even 64,000 that still leaves onlyou 10,000. Unless you want the road end to become a self sustainable football terrace.

[Pureblood]

I try to look at things, on any subject, with a big picture point of view and use as much information as I can to form any opinions I have, but will readily admit that I 'probably' see things in a more probabilistic view than others, which means I am often in the grey zone rather than seeing things black or white.

 

If I mention accounts a lot in relation to FSG, its because I have a bit of knowledge on how to analyse companies and their accounts, and lots of people say stuff which just isn't true, so I try to let people know what the accounts say so they can make their own mind up. 

 

But my views on most other things related to LFC are not based on an accounting perspective, I'm not even a fucking accountant!

 

I meant that comment specifically in relation to the thorny subject of FSG. 

 

I apologise if I offended you by inferring you were in any way connected to the shady industry of accountancy.  Which begs the question, do you think there's a possibility that LFC's accounts are in any way creative?

[The Woolster]

Well, you're saying that they're not spending what is being generated by the club. I think it's fair that the burden of proof is on you. If we, as a club, are not spending what is being earned, the money must be going somewhere. The accounts show, clearly, that they don't take money out of the club - the opposite is true. Now, if the new accounts coming in May (I think) show that they're skimming money out of the club, then not only will I be massively surprised but I will want them gone. Obviously this doesn't include repayment of loans or anything like that, just paying themselves fat dividends. They've never once done that, because they're building the value of the asset. We have sold a load of shite players (and a few decent ones) that have, because the market has increased the cost of players, been sold for similar amounts to what we payed and that money has been reinvested. What they don't do, is what City and Chelsea owners have done, which is personally put in 100s of millions. If that's what people want, then welcome to my argument from 10 years ago when I was being called out for that. People wanted to spend what we earn. This is what that looks like. This, BTW, is what fan ownership would look like more or less.

 

The problem here is in reselling. Do you think FSG are going to say 'we will sell to only the best quality buyer who'll make LFC like PSG or City'? No, they'll sell to the highest bidder, as is their obligation. I suspect that'll be a bank-funded buy out. Welcome back Hicks and Gillett.

 

It's going to be an interesting few months, between now and the end of summer. We should have a lot of money to spend. If we spend it, people will have to close their mouth a bit. If not, those of us who have been saying 'be balanced' will have to start opening ours a little bit.

 

Accounts are usually published early in March.

 

Dunno about you, but I am getting a hard on just thinking about it!

[Numero Veinticinco]

Accounts are usually published early in March.

 

Dunno about you, but I am getting a hard on just thinking about it!

It’ll be interesting. What are you expecting to see? Rise in wage bill, rise in revenue, some debts paid back? What are we waiting on, I forget.

[Pureblood]

It’ll be interesting. What are you expecting to see?

 

Tippex. 

[Red74]

Apparently it wasn't, the targets been 60,000 possibly 62,000, which means at best an additional 8000 to be the source to cover the cost. Even 64,000 that still leaves onlyou 10,000. Unless you want the road end to become a self sustainable football terrace.

The current stand must hold at least 9000. Putting the current capacity up from 55k to 62 would mean an extra 7k going on the anny Road. So reducing my previous estimate to 16,000 x £40 x 19 games would still be giving us £12m pa for a 50m outlay.

 

These have that sort of money in the ash trays of there cars. Build the fucking thing you mingey cunts

[Numero Veinticinco]

The current stand must hold at least 9000. Putting the current capacity up from 55k to 62 would mean an extra 7k going on the anny Road. So reducing my previous estimate to 16,000 x £40 x 19 games would still be giving us £12m pa for a 50m outlay.

 

These have that sort of money in the ash trays of there cars. Build the fucking thing you mingey cunts

It needs to make sense. It’s firstly about the increase in r venue not the overall revenue from the stand. Second, the cost of building it could be very costly. If I was the owner, I’d want to be sure the business could stand on its own two feet. Long term stability is important. I don’t want another couple of hundred mill places on the club and then a bump in ticket prices for those using it. It needs to make financial sense, mate.

 

We should have had a new stadium fucking decades ago. FFS.

[The Woolster]

I meant that comment specifically in relation to the thorny subject of FSG. 

 

I apologise if I offended you by inferring you were in any way connected to the shady industry of accountancy.  Which begs the question, do you think there's a possibility that LFC's accounts are in any way creative?

 

I was joking, and it would take a lot ore than that to offend me!

 

There is some creativity going on in any set of accounts, but creativity is very different from fraud. Generally speaking, the cash flow statement is open to less creativity than the profit and loss account, which is why I used cash figures in my analysis of what they have spent in their time here however many pages ago.

 

Can't remember exactly off the top of my head, but the cash figures show a net spend per year of somewhere around £40m since they've been here, up to the last accounts. In the next accounts, I expect to see net cash spend to be about 0 (give or take £5-10m), so that figure will come down, but I still think it is enough to have really competed.

[TheHowieLama]

The last thing we need is 9000 more fuckers moaning when Henderson pings it back off Matips knee.

[Pureblood]

I was joking, and it would take a lot ore than that to offend me!

 

There is some creativity going on in any set of accounts, but creativity is very different from fraud. Generally speaking, the cash flow statement is open to less creativity than the profit and loss account, which is why I used cash figures in my analysis of what they have spent in their time here however many pages ago.

 

Can't remember exactly off the top of my head, but the cash figures show a net spend per year of somewhere around £40m since they've been here, up to the last accounts. In the next accounts, I expect to see net cash spend to be about 0 (give or take £5-10m), so that figure will come down, but I still think it is enough to have really competed.

 

£40m gets you less than a Sigurdsson, how are we supposed to compete on that basis and how does it directly compare to the clubs around us?  My understanding of this is rudimentary at best, but it seems low.  

[Red74]

It needs to make sense. It’s firstly about the increase in r venue not the overall revenue from the stand. Second, the cost of building it could be very costly. If I was the owner, I’d want to be sure the business could stand on its own two feet. Long term stability is important. I don’t want another couple of hundred mill places on the club and then a bump in ticket prices for those using it. It needs to make financial sense, mate.

We should have had a new stadium fucking decades ago. FFS.

Tbh, I’m glad we didn’t move. The ground looks great apart from the any road. They’ve told us it’s gonna cost £50m, same as what we’re spending on the upgrade to Kirkby. I’d rather we had another 7,000 fans getting to see them at anfield than see another 7000 kids not make it from what’s becoming a pointless academy.

[The Woolster]

It’ll be interesting. What are you expecting to see? Rise in wage bill, rise in revenue, some debts paid back? What are we waiting on, I forget.

 

The revenue was 'announced' today in the Deloitte money list, revenues were up £60m I think.

Wages, after last years unexpected increase, fuck knows.

Net cash spend discussed above

We are meant to paying off the stadium debt at about £23m a year, its possible they are using some of the spare cash to pay that back earlier, and to be honest, I don't have a problem with that as I think it increases the chances that they decide to redevelop the ARE.

[Pureblood]

They will make the stadium as big as they can, wait for a fat TV/internet rights deal and then sell at the right moment for them.  That's what it points towards.