FSG are not shit

[dockers_strike]

Without doubt the most organised we've been behind the scenes for over 25 years. Hats off to FSG.

 

The model looks good, the infrastructure looks solid and the personnel are fantastic. A few key acquisitions and we'll be unstoppable. 

 

 

Well done those people. 

 

It is clear they have made mistakes some of them big mistakes. But it is also true they are learning from them. Sometimes I wish we had owners who did have the money to spend like Chelsea and now City. It would be interesting to see if the fans would then be happy with an autocratic owner who treated the club as their latest play interest if we were winning a title or two. Is Abramovic finally tiring of pumping money into Chelsea now Mansour can outspend him as easily as Abramovic could all the other PL teams when he first rocked up. Whatever the case I am more than happy our club is not full of debt and is pretty much self sufficient. People seem to forget that the club was sold and bought on the steps of the High Court and if that judgement had not been as it was the club would have been plunged into administration.

[Lee909]

Ridiculous. If they are just money grabbers why would they not want the club to finish high as possible and qualify each year for the Champions League and all that extra cash. Your argument does not hold any water.

Not saying they are money grabbers but not sure the money made from the champions league is worth the money they would have to invest really.

 

You make anything from 40-80ml from it.

Not all that much when to really push to make it a regular thing you need to be spending on Chelsea,Utd and City levels

[Pureblood]

Ah yes, Chelsea.  The current champions.  I'm glad we're not like them.

 

Much better to have your head held high, trading punches for fourth place and a cup run. 

[dockers_strike]

Ah yes, Chelsea.  The current champions.  I'm glad we're not like them.

 

Much better to have your head held high, trading punches for fourth place and a cup run. 

 

Losing to Burnley. Hmmm.

[dockers_strike]

Not saying they are money grabbers but not sure the money made from the champions league is worth the money they would have to invest really.

 

You make anything from 40-80ml from it.

Not all that much when to really push to make it a regular thing you need to be spending on Chelsea,Utd and City levels

 

Some facts Manchester United play to near 78000 home crowd every game. Chelsea are backed by Abramovics money to date. City are backed by an oil rich sheikh who is pumping his countrys oil wealth into them.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Burnley are a nightmare to play against we drew against them and then just scraped a win.

[Boss]

Ridiculous. If they are just money grabbers why would they not want the club to finish high as possible and qualify each year for the Champions League and all that extra cash. Your argument does not hold any water.

 

Because their return is based on the appreciation of an asset and success is largely irrelevant to that appreciation. Yes we'd make more money if we were successful but we'd also have to spend more money to achieve it, so it's a trade off.  It's a question of whether we're prepared to compete with those teams above us in terms of wages and transfer fees, and the answer is no.

 

The TV deal for the Premier League trumps the prize money handed out in any other competition, so it actually makes more sense for them financially to float us as a top 6 club and hope we can steal a Champions League place rather than investing heavily to consolidate. That's why i say it suits them.

[dockers_strike]

Burnley are a nightmare to play against we drew against them and then just scraped a win.

 

The point being the champions lost to them. We lost to Swansea. United lost to Huddersfield. Welcome to the unpredictable world of football.

[dockers_strike]

Because their return is based on the appreciation of an asset and success is largely irrelevant to that appreciation. Yes we'd make more money if we were successful but we'd also have to spend more money to achieve it, so it's a trade off.  It's a question of whether we're prepared to compete with those teams above us in terms of wages and transfer fees, and the answer is no.

 

The TV deal for the Premier League trumps the prize money handed out in any other competition, so it actually makes more sense for them financially to float us as a top 6 club and hope we can steal a Champions League place rather than investing heavily to consolidate. That's why i say it suits them.

 

Their assets appreciation is only realised if they sell the club. You really do use flawed arguments.

[Lee909]

Which has wjat to do with the fact that if they want to compete for top honours and regular champions league they would have to invest vastly in areas and is that worth it if all they want is to improve their investment.

 

Also with Chelsea they are not spending close to the others anymore in terms of net spend. Last year was a big spend but they brought alot of cash in. There signing amd selling young players is making it viable with City like spending.

 

The 25-30,000 extra fans for the mancs for 20-25 games a year doesn't cover much when you have a load of players earning far above what we pay anyone

[billypilgrimnz]

The point being the champions lost to them. We lost to Swansea. United lost to Huddersfield. Welcome to the unpredictable world of football.

 

City also drew with Palace, so I'm glad we have another excuse in the pipeline. 

[Chip Butty]

It is clear they have made mistakes some of them big mistakes. But it is also true they are learning from them. Sometimes I wish we had owners who did have the money to spend like Chelsea and now City. It would be interesting to see if the fans would then be happy with an autocratic owner who treated the club as their latest play interest if we were winning a title or two. Is Abramovic finally tiring of pumping money into Chelsea now Mansour can outspend him as easily as Abramovic could all the other PL teams when he first rocked up. Whatever the case I am more than happy our club is not full of debt and is pretty much self sufficient. People seem to forget that the club was sold and bought on the steps of the High Court and if that judgement had not been as it was the club would have been plunged into administration.

 

Can't and won't disagree with any of that. For me and maybe yourself, the way we do business is about Liverpool Football Club doing business, not a sugar daddy owner spending on his play thing. Meaning yes, the current owners may sell to make a profit, why shouldn't they, they have after all, bought a 48 hours from administration, in debt faltering club and turned it into a self sustaining profitable business and football club(yes, business first which its has to be). 

 

I look at it this way, if they did want to sell to a sugar daddy type, what would they be buying - a ground that turns aways fans as its full, one of the top 10 sporting brands in the world, a self sustaining business model, a squad and manager who on theior day can beat anyone in world football and whatever costs are to be outlayed, go one one area, the pitch after the purchase. If any of this happens at all. 

 

I may well be way off to some of our more accountancy minded individuals within this place, but I know what I feel and the club are not in the situation we were with the last owners, the fans are a lot more happier(my feel on this), we have a manager and structure in place that is in many areas, at the very least the equal of anything else and a squad that can now - looks like it can make a fist of a season, can handle long term injuries and departures and, when pushed, can beat the champions elect. Yes its not perfect, but by christ we look the strongest from top to bottom than we've been for 25 years plus. 

 

Whats not to enjoy and be positive about people? 

[Ranxerox]

Some facts Manchester United play to near 78000 home crowd every game. Chelsea are backed by Abramovics money to date. City are backed by an oil rich sheikh who is pumping his countrys oil wealth into them.

What about Spurs? They have finished above us 6 of the 7 years FSG has been here, and they have a chance of doing it again this year.

[moof]

What about Spurs? They have finished above us 6 of the 7 years FSG has been here, and they have a chance of doing it again this year.

Fuck me, if you love spurs so much why don’t you go and marry them?

[billypilgrimnz]

What about Spurs? They have finished above us 6 of the 7 years FSG has been here, and they have a chance of doing it again this year.

 

They don't count because they don't win anything, apparently. Though neither do we, so I'm a little confused about the happy campers accounting rules these days.

[Ranxerox]

Fuck me, if you love spurs so much why don’t you go and marry them?

Ha what shit.

[Boss]

Their assets appreciation is only realised if they sell the club. You really do use flawed arguments.

 

You're looking at it from an arbitrary angle. We're worth more to them than just a sale. It's about their portfolio. The expansion of their marketing capabilities. Their continued growth and expansion into the sports management field. Their ability to acquire sponsorship opportunities and grow their business model.

 

Our appreciation shows would be investors that they can get a return on their investment and it also helps FSG to procure new assets. It gives the market confidence in their financial solvency. It allows them to receive loans for any of their assets.

 

It's not only realised if they sell the club. That statement is wrong.

[SasaS]

You're looking at it from an arbitrary angle. We're worth more to them than just a sale. It's about their portfolio. The expansion of their marketing capabilities. Their continued growth and expansion into the sports management field. Their ability to acquire sponsorship opportunities and grow their business model.

 

Our appreciation shows would be investors that they can get a return on their investment and it also helps FSG to procure new assets. It gives the market confidence in their financial solvency. It allows them to receive loans for any of their assets.

 

It's not only realised if they sell the club. That statement is wrong.

 

But sporting success is directly linked with club's media exposure, standing, ability to attract casual fans who buy merchandise, sponsorship deals. It makes little business sense to keep us 6th or 7th and mostly out of Europe, because that would seriously erode the "brand value" over time.

[Marko121]

Because their return is based on the appreciation of an asset and success is largely irrelevant to that appreciation. Yes we'd make more money if we were successful but we'd also have to spend more money to achieve it, so it's a trade off. It's a question of whether we're prepared to compete with those teams above us in terms of wages and transfer fees, and the answer is no.

 

The TV deal for the Premier League trumps the prize money handed out in any other competition, so it actually makes more sense for them financially to float us as a top 6 club and hope we can steal a Champions League place rather than investing heavily to consolidate. That's why i say it suits them.

This is right and I’m surprised some people can’t see it and still defend FSG.

[Marko121]

But sporting success is directly linked with club's media exposure, standing, ability to attract casual fans who buy merchandise, sponsorship deals. It makes little business sense to keep us 6th or 7th and mostly out of Europe, because that would seriously erode the "brand value" over time.

Which is exactly why they try to control the narrative to keep sponsors and sheep happy, with their friendly journalists using terms like “massive summer “ and “ war chests”

 

You can bet that they have a strategy to sell up just before the brand erodes as you put it.

[INTORRESTING]

Last time I checked we were 4th 3 points behind last seasons champions and 2 points ahead of spurs who we play in our next home game and 5 ahead of Arsenal. Our goal difference is the same as spurs and 11 better than Arsenal with our supposed shit defence.

That makes it even more frustrating for me as we are so close.

[BeefStroganoff]

That makes it even more frustrating for me as we are so close.

 

People wheel this shit out all the time, RAWK is terrible for it. And every time they end up fucking wrong.

[SasaS]

Which is exactly why they try to control the narrative to keep sponsors and sheep happy, with their friendly journalists using terms like “massive summer “ and “ war chests”

 

You can bet that they have a strategy to sell up just before the brand erodes as you put it.

 

They are not "controlling the narrative", they are employing people to put a positive spin of what goes on around the club, as any club does. We are not some diabolical moneymaking scheme for them, we are a "sporting franchise" - there is a wage structure, transfer structure, sources of income etc. Since we are a commercial enterprise for them, the are also looking for a number of ways to fleece the "customers", within the framework of what the organization thinks it can get away with.

 

Unless they are paying themselves dividends, lending money to the club at higher than the market rates or borrowing money from the club at lower than the market rates, doing deals in which the club is paying for unnecessary services for other FSG owned companies, it makes little business sense not to reinvest the revenues in building a new stand (which increases the book value of the club) or sporting success (wages, transfers) because the sporting success transfers into bigger revenues and better sponsorship deals, which in turn makes their asset more valuable and/or attractive to potential buyers.

[TheHowieLama]

Please stop with this nonsense -

 

Shillers gonna shill

[Marko121]

They are not "controlling the narrative", they are employing people to put a positive spin of what goes on around the club, as any club does. We are not some diabolical moneymaking scheme for them, we are a "sporting franchise" - there is a wage structure, transfer structure, sources of income etc. Since we are a commercial enterprise for them, the are also looking for a number of ways to fleece the "customers", within the framework of what the organization thinks it can get away with.

 

Unless they are paying themselves dividends, lending money to the club at higher than the market rates or borrowing money from the club at lower than the market rates, doing deals in which the club is paying for unnecessary services for other FSG owned companies, it makes little business sense not to reinvest the revenues in building a new stand (which increases the book value of the club) or sporting success (wages, transfers) because the sporting success transfers into bigger revenues and better sponsorship deals, which in turn makes their asset more valuable and/or attractive to potential buyers.

Sporting success also costs money as expectation rises and you have to win again and act like a big club. Ie do what is necessary to win.

 

Now we can’t have expectations rising can we as the wages will rise, better players may want to come.

 

The sponsorships will keep on coming as long as we are there or thereabouts anyway as we are a global brand.

 

Why speculate to accumulate when you get the tv money anyway?

 

Don’t worry cos as soon as the lack of success starts to impact on the sponsorship deals and/or the tv bubble bursts, they will enact their exit strategy and make a killing anyway.

 

The fact that we the fans are already worried about the fact that we have won fuck all for over a decade, sell our better players and seem to always be in the middle of transition won’t matter a jot to them.

 

Players now see us as a route to the top rather than the pinnacle and that seems acceptable to the Owners as it fits with their model.

 

The profile of the club is the most important thing to them. Winning is only one way of keeping the profile up, but that is the one that will cost to sustain and they won’t do that.