Go fuck yourselves FSG

[stringvest]

Players went to City as well before they became a top 4 team, Etoo went to Russia, now a lot of players go to Turkey.

 

Saving your way to the top is not the way forward, its never been and it never will be.

 

Players going to Russia/China/Middle East (and Monaco) are going either because they are being given ridiculous amounts of money to do so, or because they are approaching the twilight of their career and see it as a final big payday.

 

On saving your way to the top, I agree. But getting rid of the deadwood is. Remember a few years ago when we had 60 players, most of whom were shite? Clogging up the route for academy and youth players? We're still clearing out the stickier turds from that period.

[Guest San Don]

The thing is players like Jovetic, Falcao, and Cavani probably would join us if we were to offer them 200k + a week. But I don't really think that's a route this club should be going down at all.

 

We'll have to disagree on that mate. Cavani recently said suarez needs to be at a club in the CL. I dont think cavani would have come here for 200k+ a week without CL football.

 

Anyway, 600k+ a week on 3 players?

[Lycan]

We'll have to disagree on that mate. Cavani recently said suarez needs to be at a club in the CL. I dont think cavani would have come here for 200k+ a week without CL football.

 

Anyway, 600k+ a week on 3 players?

 

We'll never know if he would or he wouldn't tbh mate.

 

Oh and I'm pretty sure the likes of Man City wage bill would be pretty similar if not more for 3 of their top earners at the moment mate. In fact Yaya Toure is said to be on more then 200k a week at the moment. That's just one bloody player.

[dennis tooth]

Nothing wrong with our owners, it's upto Rodgers now.

 

Not all brilliant players cost £30m, just the famous ones.

 

Get the 11 players on the pitch to win games, money is no guarantee of results.

 

46% win rate under rogers?

[stringvest]

Do you think that will continue this season Dennis? Improve? Deteriorate?

 

I'll wager that it will improve significantly.

[RedinSweden]

Shouldn't this argument be postponed until the end of the transfer window or until we get a statement from the club saying all business is done?

 

Then it would be based on fact rather than supposition.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Yeah we should but there's sod all else to talk about.

[dennis tooth]

Do you think that will continue this season Dennis? Improve? Deteriorate?

 

I'll wager that it will improve significantly.

 

I have no idea either way.

 

Im going to refrain from putting too much credence on his previous record at Ballymena United. Based on last season, no.

The owners have effectively wasted one season while Rogers learns his job.

Thats the best case scenario anyway. Last season was an amazing opportunity to get back in the top 4, this season it will be harder still. Our best hope is a Moyes catastrophe and United fall out the top 4 but even then we still have one of spurs or arsenal to get past.

As I said, what scares me most is the wilting under pressure we showed last year, even Arsenal showed more mental fortitude than us, who without Suarez and a reduced impact Gerrard we wouldnt even have been in contention for 7th!

That said, I cant be sure, Im probably 40% confident he can turn it round. He's safe in the job though so we will find out the results of the FSG experiment which is equivalent to the 'one dollar' bet involving Dan Ackroyd as Kenny and Eddie Murphy as Rogers.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You completely disagree with my last sentence, thats fine, but you did not answer my question which preceeded it, what happens if we spend big and don't get into Champions League next season, spend big again? And if we don't get in again?

 

That's a fair point. I think we have spent big, several times. I think we do need to spend it, but if we don't spend it wisely then we're back at square one. The only thing worse is not spending at all (which nobody advocates, of course). We're in a lucky position that we can spend big without being in the CL and we can do it most seasons. If we didn't have that, we'd be fucked, with no way back.

 

What we need to do is improve our success rate on transfers. I think we're doing that and the signs are good. I think we've probably got a fair bit of money to spend, but we're finding it hard to attract the quality of player we want.

[stringvest]

I have no idea either way.

 

Im going to refrain from putting too much credence on his previous record at Ballymena United. Based on last season, no.

The owners have effectively wasted one season while Rogers learns his job.

Thats the best case scenario anyway. Last season was an amazing opportunity to get back in the top 4, this season it will be harder still. Our best hope is a Moyes catastrophe and United fall out the top 4 but even then we still have one of spurs or arsenal to get past.

As I said, what scares me most is the wilting under pressure we showed last year, even Arsenal showed more mental fortitude than us, who without Suarez and a reduced impact Gerrard we wouldnt even have been in contention for 7th!

That said, I cant be sure, Im probably 40% confident he can turn it round. He's safe in the job though so we will find out the results of the FSG experiment which is equivalent to the 'one dollar' bet involving Dan Ackroyd as Kenny and Eddie Murphy as Rogers.

 

I'm not sure last year was an amazing opportunity to get into the top 4. This year may provide a better opportunity. To be fair to Rodgers, after a very poor start, he did turn the results around, and we produced a much better second half showing overall. I think our win rate will improve. I am not convinced Rodgers is the answer, but I'm not convinced he's not. I'm not convinced FSG are in it for the long haul, but that said, I don't believe they are strangling the playing finances either.

 

It's summer, it's hot, and lots of people are getting very hysterical very often over very little. Same as it ever was.

[Lycan]

That's a fair point. I think we have spent big, several times. I think we do need to spend it, but if we don't spend it wisely then we're back at square one. The only thing worse is not spending at all (which nobody advocates, of course). We're in a lucky position that we can spend big without being in the CL and we can do it most seasons. If we didn't have that, we'd be fucked, with no way back.

 

What we need to do is improve our success rate on transfers. I think we're doing that and the signs are good. I think we've probably got a fair bit of money to spend, but we're finding it hard to attract the quality of player we want.

 

 

Good post. And I think with us unwilling to pay silly money in wages, that will continue to be the case until we at the very least get ourselves back into some form of European competition. Obviously the sooner we do that the better.

[dennis tooth]

Yeah we will find it hard to attract them players that we dont even make bids for!

 

Numero once again ignorant, how can you say that with a straight face, zero bids, zero net spend, do the fuckin math please.

[Cardie]

If you give players good enough wages they will come' date=' CL or not, especially at a club like ours.[/quote']

 

How many players on 250k a week, 1 million a month, 12 million a year (on top of the 30 - 50 million transfer fee for each do you think is sustainable?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

How many players on 250k a week, 1 million a month, 12 million a year (on top of the 30 - 50 million transfer fee for each do you think is sustainable?

 

I would suggest starting with the bolded part as a question.

 

Yeah we will find it hard to attract them players that we dont even make bids for!

 

Numero once again ignorant, how can you say that with a straight face, zero bids, zero net spend, do the fuckin math please.

 

Empty vessels. You talk about ignorance, yet you blabber on about 'bids'. Do you have any idea how transfers work? There's no need to answer that. It's not like we've got weeks and weeks to go before the transfer window closes. It's probably best to get your moaning in now, before it's too late and we buy more players.

[Neil G]

If that's true, then great. As I've posted a different range of options, I don't disagree. You've not offered that opinion until now, you've been pretty negative. I think we're pretty much in agreement.

 

 

I didn't think I was being particularly negative. I've mentioned ranges of possibilities several times prior to this, both in terms of the situation we'd be in when the work starts, and the financing options we might be offered.

 

I've spoken a few times about the possibility of Arsenal spending big money and locking up the final CL place before we catch them, which is why I want us to make catching them our top priority, and why I therefore don't want to see us spending money on the stadium which we could be spending on the squad instead. I think that prospect is very real and has the potential to properly fuck us, even taking the Anfield redevelopment into account, so maybe you read my concern about that as negativity.

 

 

I've explained it several times, to be fair.

 

 

You haven't explained it at all, to be fair. Since I have to guess, the only thing I can think you might mean is that I'm suggesting that, if a lender offered FSG the choice of starting the stadium repayments straight away or deferring them until the work was completed, they'd go for the former.

 

Clearly that would be a stupid decision. I haven't written anything to suggest FSG would do it though. I haven't called FSG's decision-making on this issue into question at all. I've just been considering what the most favourable terms are that they might be offered in a range of scenarios.

 

 

We're one of the biggest clubs in the world, which is why we've got some of the biggest sponsorship deals in the world despite being out of the CL. We're massive in Asia, so I feel like we'd get quite a lot.

 

 

Are we talking about the same thing here? By sponsorships I assumed you meant naming rights for the stadium itself, or part of it.

 

If you meant general sponsorship deals, as in companies giving us big sums of money to spend however we wish, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Until we get back into the CL at the very least, I would much prefer to see this kind of revenue invested in the squad rather than the stadium.

 

 

True, but we have seen stadia sell their naming rights. Like City a while ago. There's no reason a development can't attract a stadium or stand naming deal. Obviously the latter would be worth a lot less.

 

 

The Etihad naming deal is widely believed to be a way for their owners to bypass FFP by indirectly investing huge sums of their own money in the club, something I presume FSG aren't considering. Plus, the name City of Manchester Stadium didn't have anywhere near the same prestige or recognition as the name of Anfield, so it was pretty easy for the Etihad to replace it in the public consciousness as the stadium's name.

 

I have no doubt that plenty of companies would be happy to pay money to have Anfield renamed after them, but given the reduced level of exposure they would get compared to naming deals for new stadiums, they wouldn't offer anywhere near as much as they would for the latter. And then FSG would have to decide whether this reduced sum would be enough to outweigh the commercial drawbacks of losing the Anfield name from the LFC brand. Our history and tradition is a massive and integral part of our appeal, so it wouldn't just be a case of accepting whatever the best offer on the table was.

 

 

That's not optimism. It's baseline. It's what happens when all positivity is taken out and we get the dry bread and water.

 

 

Nope, I keep saying that for it to be any worse than the baseline it'd take idiotic decisions.

 

 

You don't know what the baseline will be, that's my whole point. You don't know what shape the club, or FSG's finances, or the global economy will be in when the time comes for the work to start and a financing deal to be signed off. None of us do.

 

If we were ready to go right now then I'd feel more confident, but we're not. We've got the compulsory purchase issue to sort out first, and then the planning application, two processes which are both potentially susceptible to legal disputes which could drag on for years.

[Neil G]

You completely disagree with my last sentence, thats fine, but you did not answer my question which preceeded it, what happens if we spend big and don't get into Champions League next season, spend big again? And if we don't get in again?

 

 

Yes, that's correct. Not indefinitely, but certainly for the remainder of Rodgers's contract at least. If we don't have confidence that we as a club can spend money in a way that will improve the team, with a manager in post that the owners are happy with and a scouting setup that everyone's happy with, we might as well pack up and go home.

 

I'm not talking about £30m plus signings or six-figure weekly salaries, because without CL football we won't be able to attract players that will justify that kind of money. But I want us to be able to identify the best players available in the positions that need strengthening – players who'll be prepared to sign for us, who won't demand stupid wages, whose clubs will sell at a price that we consider reasonable, who we think will improve the first XI or the squad, and who ideally but not essentially will have a decent resale value – and pay what's required to get them, without waiting to sell players first. If doing that requires FSG investing their own money, over and above the club's own income, then so be it.

 

Before anyone jumps on me for criticising FSG with that paragraph, I'm not. I'm stating what I want them to be prepared to do if necessary, and they may well do just that. We'll see come September 1st.

 

Anyone can ask "what if your suggestion doesn't work?". So, your turn to answer:

 

Say we keep spending solely what the club earns, and we don't get back into the CL. Arsenal start spending serious money generated by the Emirates and turn their squad into title contenders, rather than scrapping for 4th every season. Meanwhile, our hanging around in 6th or 7th place sees our commercial and matchday revenue start to fall. The gap in both wealth and squad quality between us and the top four grows ever wider, with the result that by the time the redevelopment of Anfield is completed, even the additional revenue isn't enough to enable us to close the gap.

 

What do we do then?

[xerxes]

If we don't have confidence that we as a club can spend money in a way that will improve the team, with a manager in post that the owners are happy with and a scouting setup that everyone's happy with, we might as well pack up and go home.

 

Should the Board prudently give a manager with only two years PL experience the hundreds of millions required to re-establish us as a CL side?

[Neil G]

Should the Board prudently give a manager with only two years PL experience the hundreds of millions required to re-establish us as a CL side?

 

 

I dispute that it would need hundreds of millions. A similar net transfer kitty to the previous two seasons will be enough to get the calibre of players we need, until Arsenal start to spend big. And yes, I would trust Rodgers with that money.

[dennis tooth]

If they dont trust him, why is he in the job??

 

Actually he they dont, thankfully they've taken his transfer cock and cut it off and chopped it into bitesize peices to be handled by committee only.

 

And I missed that Numero trick there Mr G, sly that, citing the Etihad stadium sponsorship!

 

Hahaha that deal was as corrupt as they come, that was a cunts trick, come on Numero, are you really that lame and ignorant or was you being conceited there?

 

Wait, did you just call me ignorant on another thread? The Etihad tho.

[SwindleThis]

Should the Board prudently give a manager with only two years PL experience the hundreds of millions required to re-establish us as a CL side?

 

I'm assuming you've never heard of Dortmund, or Klopp.

 

Or will that be consigned to being a "one off" to suit your quite obvious agenda?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I've spoken a few times about the possibility of Arsenal spending big money and locking up the final CL place before we catch them, which is why I want us to make catching them our top priority, and why I therefore don't want to see us spending money on the stadium which we could be spending on the squad instead.

 

Yep, I totally get that. My contention is that it's unlikely it'll cost us players in the short term (and even in the most drab and droll of scenarios, it'll cost very little and not all of it will be payable over the full length of the development), but that it'll buy us players in the long term.

 

You haven't explained it at all, to be fair.

 

But, but... forget it. Your guess is almost exactly what I've said a number of times, so we're now doubly clear.

 

Are we talking about the same thing here? By sponsorships I assumed you meant naming rights for the stadium itself, or part of it.

 

I just used those sponsorship deals, and the massive size of them, as a reason for us - an elite sporting name - being able to attract decent naming partners.

 

The Etihad naming deal is widely believed to be a way for their owners to bypass FFP by indirectly

 

Fair enough, it was just the first example that popped into my head (you didn't lay out any stipulations, so I just picked a random example). I could have just as easily used another example. In fact, in the States (and I'm sure that'd be one of the places we'd be looking for investors in, just like Warrior), it's not totally uncommon for stadia to have several naming parters. Foxboro Stadium has had three different naming partners since opening. Similarly, Busch Memorial Stadium has been known by several names. Several other stadiums around the world have done the same thing.

 

But even then, if we're acknowledging that we're not getting a new stadium (and you rightly point out that many deals are struck with new stadia, rather than pre-existing ones), we should acknowledge the fact that we're not going to be an old stadium either. We'll be undergoing a fairly serious development and modernisation to both the stadium and/or the surrounding area.

 

I take your point that we've got a name for the stadium that is well known, it's a fair shout. However, on the other hand, sports commentators and newspapers and official websites will all refer to it as 'the playboy fuckpalace', or whatever corporate name it'd be given.

 

Renaming is just one option. Stand renaming is another. Neither of us know how much that's worth. It might just be tacked on to other sponsorship deals. Either way, I'd be shocked if there isn't serious interest in some sort of deal with us.

 

I have no doubt that plenty of companies would be happy to pay money to have Anfield renamed after them, but given the reduced level of exposure they would get compared to naming deals for new stadiums, they wouldn't offer anywhere near as much as they would for the latter.

 

To be fair, that's just conjecture. I think you're right in part - again, conjecture - but my guess is that the exposure in certain target markets, like Asia, would be huge regardless of the name of Anfield. I don't want the naming sold for Anfield, BTW. I'm just saying that there could well be a deal struck to pay for all or part of the redevelopment.

 

And then FSG would have to decide whether this reduced sum would be enough to outweigh the commercial drawbacks of losing the Anfield name from the LFC brand. Our history and tradition is a massive and integral part of our appeal, so it wouldn't just be a case of accepting whatever the best offer on the table was.

 

Out of interest, what commercial drawback will there be. Are people going to stop buying shirts? Hosting events? Sponsoring our shirts? I don't really know how it would impact us commercially?

 

You don't know what the baseline will be, that's my whole point. You don't know what shape the club, or FSG's finances, or the global economy will be in when the time comes for the work to start and a financing deal to be signed off. None of us do.

 

Come on. Any loan deal for a stadium will have the ability to be staggered and repayments made when the project is complete. This is just standard stuff.

 

If we were ready to go right now then I'd feel more confident, but we're not. We've got the compulsory purchase issue to sort out first, and then the planning application, two processes which are both potentially susceptible to legal disputes which could drag on for years.

 

Or could not, which is more likely.

[Ranxerox]

I thought they were a group of like minded individuals who shared a great passion for sport. When seeing the chance to become owners of one of the most decorated clubs in the history of the game they just had to buy us. The chance to help us once again back to the top table of the sport and be forever be part of the clubs future was something they could not let pass them by.

 

This is not who they are. Henry has a passion only for the Red Sox, LFC is very much a quality addition to their sports empire but they have no passion for this sport.

 

On the whole they're good responsible owners, we'll never go down with them in charge, or experience what happened to Rangers, or have someone like Joe Kinnear as DOF. They'll never sit on their ass for 20 years like David Moores. Its frustrating though that CL football and the league title seem to be out of our reach (certainly the title is). 1 or 2 more sugar daddies in the league and we'll be left behind for good. FSG simply don't have the resources to outspend the mega clubs.

[Hermes]

We are a big club in history only. We can't offer CL football, the big wages or the chance of guaranteed success.

 

Years of appointing the wrong managers, signing the wrong players for big fees/big wages and failure to build a big enough stadium and cash in on our past success has screwed up the club. We have little time left to avoid becoming just another mid-table club.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

This is not who they are. Henry has a passion only for the Red Sox, LFC is very much a quality addition to their sports empire but they have no passion for this sport.

 

On the whole they're good responsible owners, we'll never go down with them in charge, or experience what happened to Rangers, or have someone like Joe Kinnear as DOF. They'll never sit on their ass for 20 years like David Moores. Its frustrating though that CL football and the league title seem to be out of our reach (certainly the title is). 1 or 2 more sugar daddies in the league and we'll be left behind for good. FSG simply don't have the resources to outspend the mega clubs.

 

FSG certainly do have the resources to spend virtually any amount. They won't, though. They said this at the beginning. Almost everybody was happy with that.

[Nightcat]

They are the worst and most clueless Football club owners in the Premier League.

 

They are absolutely terrible.