FSG are not shit

[The Woolster]

The next step in the statistician's obfuscating argument arsenal. Deny all context and act completely puzzled that people can't recognise the pure objectivity of their numbers.

 

Haha

[Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not arguing against your right to be happy with one stand. Personally I think we could do a little bit better.

I'm not happy with one stand. I wanted a new stadium. I'm saying the fanbase wanted to stay at anfield, they've done a good job with the stand renovation, and they have done it in a financially sensible way. Like I say, there's plenty to point at without going after things they've actually done well and in line with the fans wishes.

[jimmycase]

Goodness me, we've got the 'they bought the club undervalued" (that usually happens when a distressed sale and \ or administration is on the cards) to the 'they'll make a big profit when they sell' crowds out again.

 

What's wrong with them making a big profit when the do sell?

[Numero Veinticinco]

What promise about the stadium has been broken?

 

 

What are the actual promises they made which they have broken?

Woolster has asked two fair questions, and has yet to receive an honest answer.

[joe_fishfish]

Didn't they promise to underpromise and overdeliver? That's been fucking nuked from orbit that one, never mind broken.

[The Woolster]

I'm not arguing against your right to be happy with one stand. Personally I think we could do a little bit better. 

 

Me too. They really need to get the ARE done, no excuses, and then they should start to look at what they can do with the Centenary/Kop

[Iceman]

Goodness me, we've got the 'they bought the club undervalued" (that usually happens when a distressed sale and \ or administration is on the cards) to the 'they'll make a big profit when they sell' crowds out again.

 

What's wrong with them making a building a title winning team before they knob us up the arse for a big profit when they do sell?

 

 

Exactly Jim. 

[Brownie]

They've got us back into the CL and the stadium development on the whole is a really good thing.

 

They haven't done enough in the transfer market though, not even close in my opinion. They've made plenty of mistakes with the processes they have tried to implement on the recruitement side in general.

[jimmycase]

Me too. They really need to get the ARE done, no excuses, and then they should start to look at what they can do with the Centenary/Kop

 

I agree about the ARE but any business needs to ensure the new stand income and demand is sustainable.

 

Exactly Jim. 

 

Rodger's team was the closest title winning side in years. What do you think Klopp's ambition is?

[Numero Veinticinco]

They've got us back into the CL and the stadium development on the whole is a really good thing.

 

They haven't done enough in the transfer market though, not even close in my opinion. They've made plenty of mistakes with the processes they have tried to implement on the recruitement side in general.

I think their major weakness has been structurally; the transfer 'committee' is not producing results, they have faffed around with a director of football, too. Off the field, I think it's fair to say they've been very good in terms of building a business, increasing commercial revenues, etc; on the pitch, even though they have paid out quite a lot in transfers in their time here, the money has largely been wasted or they have not been able to secure the services of the players the manager wants. That's partly down to being unable to match the super rich clubs on wages and fees - that I have little issue with - and because the staff supporting the manager have been underperforming. I've wanted a football man in there for some time. Oh for David Dein from 20 years ago.

[Pureblood]

 

[The Woolster]

I agree about the ARE but any business needs to ensure the new stand income and demand is sustainable.

 

The publicly stated issue is not whether it is sustainable, but the time frame of repayment.

 

Considering that stadium build costs are excluded from FFP calculations, that we are very likely to have a considerable surplus of cash, and that any rebuild would increase the 'value' of the club, I don't think the payback period should be a consideration (within reason, and 15 years is well within reason).

[Russ Atmosphere]

Although Liverpool's commercial revenues have been growing, so have those of all the big clubs in the league.

 

The gap between us and Manchester United has grown from £10 million in 2009 to £81 million in 2015.

[jimmycase]

I think their major weakness has been structurally; the transfer 'committee' is not producing results, they have faffed around with a director of football, too. Off the field, I think it's fair to say they've been very good in terms of building a business, increasing commercial revenues, etc; on the pitch, even though they have paid out quite a lot in transfers in their time here, the money has largely been wasted or they have not been able to secure the services of the players the manager wants. That's partly down to being unable to match the super rich clubs on wages and fees - that I have little issue with - and because the staff supporting the manager have been underperforming. I've wanted a football man in there for some time. Oh for David Dein from 20 years ago.

 

The way I see it is, when they bought the club, they were amazed at how much money was 'wasted' on player wages and even more so at the relatively poor transfer record of the club in the last 20 or so years.

 

They also saw how players could easily move on while unde r contract. They wanted to try something to resolve these issues. They havent been that successful because one club cannot change the whole of football. But they held suarez to a further year of his contract and look to have done the same with coutinho.

 

 

The publicly stated issue is not whether it is sustainable, but the time frame of repayment.

 

Considering that stadium build costs are excluded from FFP calculations, that we are very likely to have a considerable surplus of cash, and that any rebuild would increase the 'value' of the club, I don't think the payback period should be a consideration (within reason, and 15 years is well within reason).

 

Yes but Id argue sustainability and repayment are interlinked.

 

At the end of the day, I think everyone would love a stadium that was at least capable of 60k capacity if not more. It would be interesting to know how many of the 'new' season tickets they issued in the last few years are still with the same purchaser. Hopefully, it's 100% but lashing out a regular £600+ a year, some people like the idea of a seassie but may find other commitments are more important.

[ngogswilly]

Surely some of the issues with transfers though just boils down to basics i.e. They haven't wanted to pay up

 

For example Salah a few years ago. Everyone says he snubbed us for Chelsea but I'm fairly certain his agent is on record as saying we faffed about on the fee with Basle and thus we lost out.

 

There plenty other examples over the past 4 or 5 years.

[Anubis]

1. They never promised a new stadium, merely a review to see what the best option was;

 

2. However, there was this guff from Werner in 2010 - "...We know coming in here that since the Premier League was created we haven't won. That's what our charge is, first and foremost."

 

I really don't think winning the PL has been their charge, first and foremost. You can realistically say they've broken that.

 

 

My view on FSG or NESV or whatever they want to call themselves is simple, while their aims and our aims align that's fine, but don't trust them. You'd have to be mad to trust any football club owners.

 

Maybe if TLW clubbed together and collectively bought LFC then I'd trust the owners.... ....oh who am I fucking kidding. I wouldn't trust any of you cunts either.

[jimmycase]

Surely some of the issues with transfers though just boils down to basics i.e. They haven't wanted to pay up

 

For example Salah a few years ago. Everyone says he snubbed us for Chelsea but I'm fairly certain his agent is on record as saying we faffed about on the fee with Basle and thus we lost out.

 

There plenty other examples over the past 4 or 5 years.

 

The bottom line is yes, they didnt want to pay beyond what they saw as a player's value. That goes back to what I said before that they were taken aback at transfer fees, players wages and then a player saying I want a move and historically, clubs just going along with it.

 

Have to admit, I find it incredibly frustrating especially when you think just pay another 2 or 3 million to get the deal done. But then any other club vying for the same players goes 'we'll pay another 4 or 5 million to get the deal and offer bigger wages.

 

Salah's on record saying he wanted to join us but mourinho's telephone call swung it for him.

[ngogswilly]

Negotiations took a long time, because Basel rejected more than one offer. They felt the transfer fee was not that high. I was waiting for Liverpool [to agree terms with Basel] because I really like Liverpool. I was eager to join them.

 

"But then I received a phone call from Mourinho and that changed everything. He explained the situation to me and told me that he needed me at Chelsea. That was one of the main reasons why I joined Chelsea.

[aws]

FSG are an investment fund so their only true function is making money for their investors. Is anyone really surprised by that statement of the bleeding obvious? The way they plan to make money is by growing the value of their asset and selling sometime in the future. Of course they will try to limit the money they put into the club in the meantime. They're not a charity, they haven't bought an expensive toy, they're running a business.

 

Why do people on here seem affronted/shocked by all this? I seem to remember that hardly anybody on here wanted to be owned by a sugar daddy or an oil-rich state. If you don't want either of those and if fan ownership is a pipe-dream, then somebody like FSG is probably as good as it gets. Maybe we could have better owners but I'm sure we could have(and have had) worse.

 

As Woolster has shown, they're not taking money out of the club so the only real question is are they starving the club of investment and preventing us being successful. For me, the jury is still out because they got their fingers burned by Kenny and Brendan who wasted tens (hundreds?) of millions in the transfer market and it could be that they wanted to make sure Jurgen wouldn't do the same before letting him loose with their credit card. If Jurgen's part of the deal was that he would only buy real quality rather than cheap stocking fillers (as everybody on here has been calling for since Houllier days) then holding out for a VDV or a Lemar or a Keita makes sense and is nothing to get worked up about. My impression is they genuinely tried to buy Keita and VVD this summer but I accept that might not be true and it might have been with expectation of selling Coutinho.

 

If FSG let him spend the £1O0m or so he must have 'in the bank' plus any money for Coutinho over the next two windows then I think FSG can be absolved of starving the club. If they don't then they are guilty as charged.

[El Rojo]

FSG are an investment fund so their only true function is making money for their investors. Is anyone really surprised by that statement of the bleeding obvious? The way they plan to make money is by growing the value of their asset and selling sometime in the future. Of course they will try to limit the money they put into the club in the meantime. They're not a charity, they haven't bought an expensive toy, they're running a business.

 

Why do people on here seem affronted/shocked by all this? I seem to remember that hardly anybody on here wanted to be owned by a sugar daddy or an oil-rich state. If you don't want either of those and if fan ownership is a pipe-dream, then somebody like FSG is probably as good as it gets. Maybe we could have better owners but I'm sure we could have(and have had) worse.

 

As Woolster has shown, they're not taking money out of the club so the only real question is are they starving the club of investment and preventing us being successful. For me, the jury is still out because they got their fingers burned by Kenny and Brendan who wasted tens (hundreds?) of millions in the transfer market and it could be that they wanted to make sure Jurgen wouldn't do the same before letting him loose with their credit card. If Jurgen's part of the deal was that he would only buy real quality rather than cheap stocking fillers (as everybody on here has been calling for since Houllier days) then holding out for a VDV or a Lemar or a Keita makes sense and is nothing to get worked up about. My impression is they genuinely tried to buy Keita and VVD this summer but I accept that might not be true and it might have been with expectation of selling Coutinho.

 

If FSG let him spend the £1O0m or so he must have 'in the bank' plus any money for Coutinho over the next two windows then I think FSG can be absolved of starving the club. If they don't then they are guilty as charged.

 

Great post.

[jimmycase]

I seem to remember that hardly anybody on here wanted to be owned by a sugar daddy or an oil-rich state. If you don't want either of those and if fan ownership is a pipe-dream, then somebody like FSG is probably as good as it gets. Maybe we could have better owners but I'm sure we could have(and have had) worse.

 

Bang on this.

[Numero Veinticinco]

FSG are an investment fund so their only true function is making money for their investors. Is anyone really surprised by that statement of the bleeding obvious? The way they plan to make money is by growing the value of their asset and selling sometime in the future. Of course they will try to limit the money they put into the club in the meantime. They're not a charity, they haven't bought an expensive toy, they're running a business.

 

Why do people on here seem affronted/shocked by all this? I seem to remember that hardly anybody on here wanted to be owned by a sugar daddy or an oil-rich state. If you don't want either of those and if fan ownership is a pipe-dream, then somebody like FSG is probably as good as it gets. Maybe we could have better owners but I'm sure we could have(and have had) worse.

 

As Woolster has shown, they're not taking money out of the club so the only real question is are they starving the club of investment and preventing us being successful. For me, the jury is still out because they got their fingers burned by Kenny and Brendan who wasted tens (hundreds?) of millions in the transfer market and it could be that they wanted to make sure Jurgen wouldn't do the same before letting him loose with their credit card. If Jurgen's part of the deal was that he would only buy real quality rather than cheap stocking fillers (as everybody on here has been calling for since Houllier days) then holding out for a VDV or a Lemar or a Keita makes sense and is nothing to get worked up about. My impression is they genuinely tried to buy Keita and VVD this summer but I accept that might not be true and it might have been with expectation of selling Coutinho.

 

If FSG let him spend the £1O0m or so he must have 'in the bank' plus any money for Coutinho over the next two windows then I think FSG can be absolved of starving the club. If they don't then they are guilty as charged.

Quite right. Although, there have been other things they have handled that deserve further scrutiny, but the same would be true of an oligarch.

 

As for their function, it’s true that they exist to make money for their investors, but it should be added that this fact does not mean their objective cannot match our desires in seeing the team win. I’ve not seen an argument that credibly claims that having a winning side isn’t worth more in sponsorship, prize money, and TV share than one that’s floating. If it makes more, it’s wortb more as an asset. Winning, and the investment it takes to do so, is both a balancing act and a judgment call as to whether it’s worth it. Same goes for the stadium.

 

I think they are looking to win but not at any cost. The oligarchs at PSG and City are absolutely looking to win at any cost. We need some clever management and to spend our money more wisely if we are to win. We haven’t done that yet, but certainly not to a degree that makes me want to twist rather than stick with this ownership. Only in the event that a multi-billionaire (with sound business accument and solid ethical approach who is looking to win-win-win) comes along will I want to switch ownership. Anything else is way too risky. That doesn’t stop the fan base - or customers of the business - holding the ownership to account for their actions in some way, though.

[Arl arse]

They're like that white dog shit you used to see back in the day, still shit but everyone seems to think it's good for some reason.

[Numero Veinticinco]

They're like that white dog shit you used to see back in the day, still shit but everyone seems to think it's good for some reason.

Haha!

[Rotpeter]

aws has spoken.  End Thread.