Go fuck yourselves FSG

[dennis tooth]

Do you have any idea how delusional that would sound to just about any other club in the league outside of City and Chelsea? Since narrowly losing out to United in 2009, we've outspent them, both net and gross. Little money? We're spending more than we ever have before.

 

Thats not the point.

Plus we've just recycled the money Torres, Alonso, Mascherano or whoever else we have sold so its a bit naughty to say we've spent this, we havent spent shit, actually.

[dennis tooth]

Thanks for producing the whole article in context. It wasnt hard was it?

 

Clearly he was wrong and being swept along in the moment.

 

Ay, so was you.

 

The context didnt change a thing???

 

Madman

[dennis tooth]

I don't think he was actually wrong. Having the money to compete with anybody doesn't mean we can spend as much as them, but that we have adequate money to compete with them for titles.

 

Even then, we've outspent the league champions (and the champions in 3 out of the last 5 seasons) net and gross since we only just lost out to them in 2009. I'd say that the amount we've had to spend hasn't really been the problem. I think we've got enough money to compete.

 

I don't think we're ever going to match the teams wiling to pay players 250k per week just to attract them to the club. Then again, I don't particularly want us to pay players that much. It's unsustainable in the long term.

 

Yes I agree with this.

 

People are thick however and saying I am saying we should throw £50m on a player and pay 250k pw.

 

Thats not what Ive said.

 

The issue I am raising is the mistakes they make in appointments like Commolli and roll the dice Rogers etc.

 

This is why we are not competing.

 

As for the owner and Rogers chatting continuous volumes of shit. Its simple, I dont like being lied to. There's been a few bare faced lies told to the fans, gets shirts old though dunnit?

 

As for San Don, his ridiculousity continues unabated in an effort to defend the owners at all costs.

Yes we won a cup under them, they then dismissed it and the manager who won it for a total novice who has not won shit. Then kept him when he had a similar record with no cup.

But, Im sure they understand we exist to win trophies.

 

Lets see what happens during the rest of the window and revisit the issue.

 

Clearly the blind defenders who deny that they are but only defend them and claim any criticism is banned because we were on the verge of bbankrupcy when they bought us and no one else has bid for the club since.

So we should just allow FSG to do what they fuck they want and cant criticise or put any pressure on them as fans?

Apparently every owner would run the club in the same manner.

 

I think thats a good summation of it.

Oh and anyone who crosses that red line will be accused of wanting £50mil players, sugar daddy playboy biollionaire playthingery or having problems in their personal lives, not finding articles to give quotes context, accusing reaina of being on £8m a year, negativity, doubting whether Martinez will finish above us, having 'an agenda', not knowing the full details of Reina loan/personal life thus not being able to comment at all on what is obviously a ludicrous deal.

I think I got it all in that list.

[Coro]

But there are plenty of them in the CL, a competition in which they reached the final after their 4m striker spanked 4 passed Real Madrid.

 

the supporter owned Dortmund? Hmm you might be onto something

 

The chief executive of Borussia Dortmund, who play Manchester City in the Champions League on Tuesday, has launched a passionate defence of German football principles and attacked English clubs' ownership by rich men from overseas.

 

Hans-Joachim Watzke described German football as "romantic" for retaining its "50% plus one" rule, which requires Bundesliga clubs to be owned by their members. He questioned the ethos and sustainability of Premier League clubs' ownership, including City being owned and funded by Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi.

 

Of City, a club he visited for last month's 1-1 draw in the first match between the two, Watzke said: "I am a little bit romantic, and that is not romantic. In England people seem not to be interested in this – at Liverpool they are fine for the club to belong to an American. But the German is romantic: when there is a club, he wants to have the feeling it is my club, not the club of Qatar or Abu Dhabi."

 

Watzke was a prominent supporter of the 50% plus one rule when it was challenged last year by Martin Kind, the president of Hannover. Dortmund are floated on the stock market, but the members elect the president and four members of the club's supervisory board – and also vote to decide major issues of club policy.

 

"I was the biggest opponent of changing the rule," Watzke said in an interview with the Guardian at Dortmund's Signal Iduna stadium in the build-up to the City match. "Germans want to have that sense of belonging. When you give [the supporters] the feeling that they are your customers, you have lost. In Germany, we want everybody to feel it is their club, and that is really important."

 

All 36 Bundesliga clubs are owned or controlled by their members, except the historic exceptions of Wolfsburg, owned by Volkswagen, Bayer Leverkeusen, owned by the pharmacy giant Bayer, and Hoffenheim, which is now funded by a single very wealthy entrepreneur, Dietmar Hopp.

 

Apart from those three and Kind's Hannover, the remaining 32 voted to keep the 50% plus one rule, which was introduced in 2001 when the Bundesliga clubs broke away to run the league competition independently from the German Football Association, the DFB.

 

"In former times in England I think the relationship between the club and supporters was very strong," Watzke argued. "Our people come to the stadium like they are going to their family. Here, the supporters say: it's ours, it's my club."

 

Watzke, himself a lifelong supporter of Dortmund, who drew 1-1 with runaway Bundesliga leaders Bayern Munich on Saturday, linked the system of member-ownership and control to the maintenance of affordable tickets and standing areas at top flight German football.

At Dortmund, the 25,000 fans who form the famous "Yellow Wall" standing area in the Signal Iduna stadium's south stand pay just €190 (£154) for a season ticket for the 17 home Bundesliga matches. Season tickets that also include entry to the first three Champions League group games cost slightly more at €220, working out at exactly €11 for each match.

"Here, it is our way to have cheap tickets, so young people can come," Watzke said. "We would make €5m more a season if we had seats, but there was no question to do it, because it is our culture. In England it is a lot more expensive. Football is more than a business."

 

Watzke argued that Dortmund, who top the group of City, Real Madrid and Ajax while the English champions cannot qualify for the knockout stages, have been able to compete with such clubs thanks to sensible management, coaching and player recruitment, despite not having the resources of a rich individual such as Sheikh Mansour backing the club.

 

"Everybody told me you cannot play in the Champions League against clubs like Manchester, they have more money. But we are trying to do it ourselves, in our way.

 

"There are a lot of ways to Rome,"

 

 

Clearly the blind defenders who deny that they are but only defend them and claim any criticism is banned because we were on the verge of bbankrupcy when they bought us and no one else has bid for the club since.

So we should just allow FSG to do what they fuck they want and cant criticise or put any pressure on them as fans?

Apparently every owner would run the club in the same manner.

 

excuse me whilst I plagiarise a famous quote -

 

"I'll tell you what FSG don't want. They don't want a group of football supporters capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated supporters capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

 

You know what they want? Obedient supporters, people who are just smart enough to buy the tickets and wear the latest merchandise but just dumb enough to passively accept all the spin, bluster and bullshit."

[Coro]

We're spending more than we ever have before.

 

whilst receiving record fees

 

disturbing how you keep leaving that bit out

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

the supporter owned Dortmund? Hmm you might be onto something

 

That makes them more relevant. Not because we're in the same position with ownership, but because they've had to be self sustaining for so long. If anything, we're more like Dortmund than somebody like City or Chelsea. Yes, they're part owned by fans, but that doesn't mean the way they've risen to the top can't be used as inspiration - if not a total blueprint - for our revival.

 

I accept they're in a different league, but there's no reason why we can't fly closer the Dortmund way of improving - buying up and coming players, using clever scouting, searching places others don't always look - rather than City's 'throw money at it' approach. Actually, we can do what Dortmund have done by with the added benefit that we're one of the biggest spenders in the league over the last four seasons. Actually, ever.

 

I'm not saying we're exactly the same as Dortmund. If you've seen me say that, feel free to point it out.

 

whilst receiving record fees

 

disturbing how you keep leaving that bit out

 

I'm not leaving it out. If anything, it only strengthens the case that we're spending. I'm not arguing this side because I'm some FSG fanatic, I'm arguing it because it's actually what happened. You talk about critical thinking, but you seem to apply it yourself. Critical thinking doesn't mean 'be negative towards everything', it's a way of discovering the validity of something by analysing empirical evidence. Not criticising a group for every decision they make, regardless of what happens.

 

As for 'receiving record fees', I don't think that's in any way accurate. In the 7 transfer windows (including the one we're currently in) during FSG's reign of terror, we've only sold three players for fees over £7m. Three players in 7 transfer windows where we've received fees over £7m. In contrast, we've bought 14 players over £7m. We've bought seven players over £10m, and five over £15m. We've also yet to make any massive purchases this summer, despite trying to with Mkhitaryan.

 

In what way do three sales over 7m, and only one significant sale (who forced his way out of the club and went on to do poorly) equate to received record fees. We've received one record fee. Since 2009, due to our spending under FSG, we've spent more than United - both net and gross. We've had the money to challenge.

[Marko121]

It's really funny how the apologists mention we tried to sign Mkhitaryan as some badge of honour ( Everton are we? )

 

We didn't sign him and if we had, it may have seen us having to sell someone else.

 

One minute we get Mignolet here to provide competition, now we have " we can't justify Reina's wages to sit on the bench" more proof, if needed that it is all about the bottom line

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It's really funny how the apologists mention we tried to sign Mkhitaryan as some badge of honour ( Everton are we? )

 

We didn't sign him and if we had, it may have seen us having to sell someone else.

 

One minute we get Mignolet here to provide competition, now we have " we can't justify Reina's wages to sit on the bench" more proof, if needed that it is all about the bottom line

 

Firstly, I'm not an apologist. If they do something I think is wrong, I'm more than happy to slam them for it. As for mentioning Mkhitaryan, we've signed plenty of high-price players already, so using a signing we didn't make isn't necessary. I used it because it's an indicator that we've still got money to spend.

 

Then there's this 'bottom line' thing. Do you know how much money FSG have earned since taking over the club?

[Marko121]

Firstly, I'm not an apologist. If they do something I think is wrong, I'm more than happy to slam them for it. As for mentioning Mkhitaryan, we've signed plenty of high-price players already, so using a signing we didn't make isn't necessary. I used it because it's an indicator that we've still got money to spend.

 

Then there's this 'bottom line' thing. Do you know how much money FSG have earned since taking over the club?

 

We may have spent some more money if we bought the Armenia fella - but would that then mean that someone else would have to leave?

 

We have seen how they want players on the bench to be cheaper,never mind whether they are good enough to step in if they have to.

 

No idea how much they have earned, but I suspect that they not to bothered about earning anything now, just as long as there is a massive profit when they come to sell

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

We may have spent some more money if we bought the Armenia fella - but would that then mean that someone else would have to leave?

 

Neither of us know for sure, but considering how we've spent money in the past I'd see no reason to believe we have to do so.

 

We have seen how they want players on the bench to be cheaper,never mind whether they are good enough to step in if they have to.

 

That's clearly not true. We've sold many crap players and replaced them with expensive player. Admittedly, we don't want to be paying £110k per week for players to sit on the bench, or our £35m player to be getting splinters in his arse. To me, that's just common sense. Actually, it's required for us to climb the league.

 

If we can have options like Alberto, Aspas, Sterling, et al on the bench, for 30-40k each, rather than paying Joe Cole, Aquilani and Jovanovic about 18m a year to sit on the bench, surely it's smart to do that. Firstly, because those are better younger player, but secondly because it'll save us about 30-40m over the length of those players' contracts. That can then be reinvested.

 

This is just basic stuff to run a football club successfully. Of course, fans want to only talk about what's going on the pitch. I do, too. Unfortunately, there's a financial reality behind it. When talking about the decisions being made by the manager, the owners and the transfer committee, you've got to take those financial realities into account.

 

No idea how much they have earned, but I suspect that they not to bothered about earning anything now, just as long as there is a massive profit when they come to sell

 

They're about 350m down at the moment. Even if they sell for a 20% profit on the purchase price in, say, 3 years, they need to split that £60m between the 12 (I think that's how many FSG interests there are, I'm not 100% but it's around that) investors, which is 5m each. Spread that over the 6 years they'll have owned us and that's 830k per investor per year. These people are worth either hundreds of millions or billions. They're not going to piss their pants for that.

 

The best way for them to get a return is to spend in the short term to get us back to a high level - and they're spending the right sort of numbers so far - and in the CL, then get the stadium sorted and paid for, then they can sell for a good return. But that's the long game. It's the only real way for them to make a significant enough profit to make all of this worth while.

[Hand Shandy]

 

We may have spent some more money if we bought the Armenia fella - but would that then mean that someone else would have to leave?

 

We have seen how they want players on the bench to be cheaper' date='never mind whether they are good enough to step in if they have to.

 

No idea how much they have earned, but I suspect that they not to bothered about earning anything now, just as long as there is a massive profit when they come to sell[/quote']

 

Reina aside (he could have said he didn't want to go in loan and wanted to fight for his place...), how have we weakened our squad with the business we've conducted so far?

 

Have we sold any regular first team starters?

 

As far as I can recall, the only player we've actually sold is Shelvey, who I wouldn't have thought was on a massive wedge.

 

We've loaned out a number of young players who would probably not have gotten game time otherwise, and brought in several players who will either start or who will strengthen the bench at the very least...

 

And I would imagine their wages add up to more than Shelvey's.

[Hand Shandy]

NV beat me to it.

[Captain]

I can't believe some are criticizing FSG for not spending enough.

[Guest San Don]

It's really funny how the apologists mention we tried to sign Mkhitaryan as some badge of honour ( Everton are we? )

 

We didn't sign him and if we had, it may have seen us having to sell someone else.

 

One minute we get Mignolet here to provide competition, now we have " we can't justify Reina's wages to sit on the bench" more proof, if needed that it is all about the bottom line

 

Wind your neck in Marko lad. Just because people have a different opinion doesnt mean they are apologist for anyone.

[Ranxerox]

 

 

They're about 350m down at the moment.

 

Source?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

Source?

 

Purchase price, losses, loan to the club. Total might well be more than 350.

[Nightcat]

Firstly, I'm not an apologist.

 

You are an FSG professional appreciator.

 

Purchase price, losses, loan to the club. Total might well be more than 350.

hahahahaha uhuhuhhauhhahahahaha

 

you are ridiculous.

[xerxes]

FSG bought us as a sporting investment, a low risk punt on a business struggling through the previous owners lack of liquidity, something they had in spades.

 

If FSG had wanted to pump substantial sums in, several investors could have done that personally by buying us outright, outside of FSG. They didn’t. That was never the deal.

 

Seth Klarman is the most influential member of FSG, his seminal work, Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor, is pretty self-explanatory.

 

They bought us to get a stake in a burgeoning sporting sector outside of the States, to get a slice of the windfall profits, and to offer some nice days out in London (you will notice the preferred place of meeting Ian Ayre these days). This was never about Liverpool as a city, LFC as a club or sporting excellence.

 

The club has been up for sale twice in recent years, first time around, we had only two serious buyers, none of whom exist as trading entities anymore. Last time around there was just one. Without a new stadium to capitalise upon our support we were a poor buy, three years down the line, and with FFP looming, that situation is worse.

 

FSG have what they came for, considerable windfall income from the enhanced TV and commercial deals. Does that make the club worth more? Not necessarily. Our rivals are still so far ahead of us that considerable capital investment in the team is required to grab a top four place, and that windfall is available to our rivals too. The stadium is the only trump card we have to claw back ground. And a significant chunk of that windfall income will go to agents, salaries and transfer fees. How much of the extra £30m from TV will show as profit? Very little. So you can argue that with even more money needing to be sent now than before, our value is less.

 

Some suggest we can “do a Dortmund”. But the competition rules in Germany are much fairer than in the PL, here is is still about cash. Furthermore if we are going to win by being smarter, not richer, we need te smartest men around. Is a manager with only two years PL experience really going to outwit the PL and Euro elite? Is a man who previously ran Huddersfield Town going to outwit his rival CEO’s?

 

How is it that we can afford to spend a combined £55m in fees and £160,000 a week on Carroll and Downing to little effect, but can’t afford the best managers and CEO’s in the business? Because winning is not the objective for FSG, it is doing enough to make an acceptable return. Ayre and Rodgers are just grateful for their jobs at LFC, it’s a quite life in Boston. Van Gaal, Barwick ( name your choice) would be telling Boston exactly what needed to be done, and it expect it to happen. But that is not what FSG want. Net investment on and off the pitch for the long term good? No thanks.

 

Some have spoken of protests. About what? That we are being run in a prudent, risk averse manner. FSG to sell? To who?

 

The stadium, overtly, was G&H’s nemesis, and so more subtly, it may be FSG’s. New Anfield would have delivered £35m or so into the coffers, and under FFP it is free money, enough, annually to give us a chance to claw our way back. But FSG are not prepared to make a medium to long term investment. They may well sell, eventually, with enough to make a profit, 10% over three years would still be better than having put the money in the bank. But what shape will they leave us in?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Some suggest we can “do a Dortmund”. But the competition rules in Germany are much fairer than in the PL, here is is still about cash. Furthermore if we are going to win by being smarter, not richer, we need te smartest men around.

 

To be fair, Dortmund won the title by buying players for 3/4m. We don't need to do that, we can spend out on 20m players. The issue is that because City and Chelsea can spend so massively, and United have, until now, been incredibly stable, even £20m players aren't always enough. So we need to be smarter. I think it can be demonstrated by the signings of Coutinho and Sturridge that if we do that enough times, we can push up the league. Regardless of how much others are spending. It's more difficult, I don't think anybody will suggest otherwise.

 

Is a manager with only two years PL experience really going to outwit the PL and Euro elite?

 

It has happened several times in our history. I don't see why not. I certainly think there's a structure in place to make failures in the transfer market less frequent.

 

I know we didn't get him, but Mkhitaryan is absolutely the type of signing that we should be going for. He is the type of player who isn't as cheap as the likes of Lewendowski, Gündoğan, Sahin, Hummels, Subotic, Sven Bender, but can have the same sort of impact for a less risky transfer. So we reduce the risk by playing a more known quantity, but also buy non-superstars like Chelsea and City have been. We can get level by mixing the two schools. We don't really have a choice.

 

Is a man who previously ran Huddersfield Town going to outwit his rival CEO’s?

 

Well, he has certainly bagged some commercial deals to rival anybody in the sport, even though we're out of the CL. I'd like a 'football man' to add to the backroom, but being as dismissive of Ayre as you are doesn't really make him on the level of Huddersfield anymore than Barnes was of the level of Watford.

 

I'm not saying Ayre is the Barnes of the commercial world, but he isn't totally inept at bringing in lots of money. Should we complement that with a footballing side? Of course. With the committee, I think we're doing okay. Ayre should stick to selling things.

 

How is it that we can afford to spend a combined £55m in fees and £160,000 a week on Carroll and Downing to little effect, but can’t afford the best managers and CEO’s in the business? Because winning is not the objective for FSG, it is doing enough to make an acceptable return. Ayre and Rodgers are just grateful for their jobs at LFC, it’s a quite life in Boston. Van Gaal, Barwick ( name your choice) would be telling Boston exactly what needed to be done, and it expect it to happen. But that is not what FSG want. Net investment on and off the pitch for the long term good? No thanks.

 

I'm fairly sure Rodgers is telling them exactly what we need to do, too.

 

Some have spoken of protests. About what? That we are being run in a prudent, risk averse manner. FSG to sell? To who?

 

The stadium, overtly, was G&H’s nemesis, and so more subtly, it may be FSG’s. New Anfield would have delivered £35m or so into the coffers, and under FFP it is free money, enough, annually to give us a chance to claw our way back. But FSG are not prepared to make a medium to long term investment. They may well sell, eventually, with enough to make a profit, 10% over three years would still be better than having put the money in the bank. But what shape will they leave us in?

 

A much better one than they inherited, I'd wager.

[Guest San Don]

FSG bought us as a sporting investment, a low risk punt on a business struggling through the previous owners lack of liquidity, something they had in spades.

 

If FSG had wanted to pump substantial sums in, several investors could have done that personally by buying us outright, outside of FSG. They didn’t. That was never the deal.

 

Seth Klarman is the most influential member of FSG, his seminal work, Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor, is pretty self-explanatory.

 

They bought us to get a stake in a burgeoning sporting sector outside of the States, to get a slice of the windfall profits, and to offer some nice days out in London (you will notice the preferred place of meeting Ian Ayre these days). This was never about Liverpool as a city, LFC as a club or sporting excellence.

 

The club has been up for sale twice in recent years, first time around, we had only two serious buyers, none of whom exist as trading entities anymore. Last time around there was just one. Without a new stadium to capitalise upon our support we were a poor buy, three years down the line, and with FFP looming, that situation is worse.

 

FSG have what they came for, considerable windfall income from the enhanced TV and commercial deals. Does that make the club worth more? Not necessarily. Our rivals are still so far ahead of us that considerable capital investment in the team is required to grab a top four place, and that windfall is available to our rivals too. The stadium is the only trump card we have to claw back ground. And a significant chunk of that windfall income will go to agents, salaries and transfer fees. How much of the extra £30m from TV will show as profit? Very little. So you can argue that with even more money needing to be sent now than before, our value is less.

 

Some suggest we can “do a Dortmund”. But the competition rules in Germany are much fairer than in the PL, here is is still about cash. Furthermore if we are going to win by being smarter, not richer, we need te smartest men around. Is a manager with only two years PL experience really going to outwit the PL and Euro elite? Is a man who previously ran Huddersfield Town going to outwit his rival CEO’s?

 

How is it that we can afford to spend a combined £55m in fees and £160,000 a week on Carroll and Downing to little effect, but can’t afford the best managers and CEO’s in the business? Because winning is not the objective for FSG, it is doing enough to make an acceptable return. Ayre and Rodgers are just grateful for their jobs at LFC, it’s a quite life in Boston. Van Gaal, Barwick ( name your choice) would be telling Boston exactly what needed to be done, and it expect it to happen. But that is not what FSG want. Net investment on and off the pitch for the long term good? No thanks.

 

Some have spoken of protests. About what? That we are being run in a prudent, risk averse manner. FSG to sell? To who?

 

The stadium, overtly, was G&H’s nemesis, and so more subtly, it may be FSG’s. New Anfield would have delivered £35m or so into the coffers, and under FFP it is free money, enough, annually to give us a chance to claw our way back. But FSG are not prepared to make a medium to long term investment. They may well sell, eventually, with enough to make a profit, 10% over three years would still be better than having put the money in the bank. But what shape will they leave us in?

 

Fuck! I wish I'd kept some neg back for this drivel!

[xerxes]

Fuck! I wish I'd kept some neg back for this drivel!

Which bits don't you understand?

[cuppatea]

Some suggest we can “do a Dortmund”. But the competition rules in Germany are much fairer than in the PL, here is is still about cash. Furthermore if we are going to win by being smarter, not richer, we need te smartest men around. Is a manager with only two years PL experience really going to outwit the PL and Euro elite? Is a man who previously ran Huddersfield Town going to outwit his rival CEO’s?

 

How is it that we can afford to spend a combined £55m in fees and £160,000 a week on Carroll and Downing to little effect, but can’t afford the best managers and CEO’s in the business? Because winning is not the objective for FSG, it is doing enough to make an acceptable return. Ayre and Rodgers are just grateful for their jobs at LFC, it’s a quite life in Boston. Van Gaal, Barwick ( name your choice) would be telling Boston exactly what needed to be done, and it expect it to happen. But that is not what FSG want. Net investment on and off the pitch for the long term good? No thanks.

 

The irony being that Dortmund appointed a no mark from the 2nd division (having got his team relegated the season before) as their manager and one of the elite he outwitted there was Van Gaal, who was sacked by Bayern as the unglamorous, unproven and under-qualified Klopp led his team to the title.

[Guest San Don]

Which bits don't you understand?

 

I understood it was all drivel, thanks. ;)

[cuppatea]

And if you don't like the example of an unproven manager in Germany enjoying great success, how about Wenger coming to Arsenal from the J-League, having being sacked in his previous stint in European management? Or Guardiola getting the Barca job after 1 year coaching their B team? Or Rafa going to Valencia with more sackings than trophies on his CV? Or Allegri winning fuck all before going to Milan and winning the league? Or Conte doing the same at Juventus? Or Mourinho getting the Porto job with less than a full season in management?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The irony being that Dortmund appointed a no mark from the 2nd division (having got his team relegated the season before) as their manager and one of the elite he outwitted there was Van Gaal, who was sacked by Bayern as the unglamorous, unproven and under-qualified Klopp led his team to the title.

 

That's a hell of a point you've made there. EDIT: And above.