Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Go fuck yourselves FSG


Neil G
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've mentioned this before but, who could even buy us? 

 

We're an extremely valuable business as it stands, it's alright thinking FSG could quickly flog us to reap the profit but there's only going to be a handful of people on the planet that could afford to pay that, do we really want some no mark Arab Prince or a corrupt Asian with a gambling problem to take over? When the pool of potential buyers is so small you don't get to be picky. 

 

And if I was one of those no mark Arabs or Asians then it seems like a better idea to buy somebody mid table for a couple of hundred million and then have a billion to throw into transfers than to spend 1.5 billion on us and still need to spend money on signings anyway. 

 

If billionaires are going to be buying Premier league clubs they are going to buy the Man Cities and Newcastles not the Liverpools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk of 'they saved us' is like something you would expect from a 10 year old. They did didly squat. They saw a potentially profitable asset going cheap and they took advantage of it. They are not arsed about you or me, or the working class fella who just wants to take his two young kids to their first game. They don't give a stuff about that, as long as someone, anyone is buying merchandise and paying top dollar for tickets and hospitality.

 

As far as FSGOUT is concerned, I'm not bothered either way. In fact they can make as much money off us as they like, as long as a good portion is reinvested into the playing side of things, you know, the important bit of a football club.

 

But thats where it falls down for me and where a majority of our fans get a bit blind. We are sell to buy. That policy is the way we deal with transfers and I have a massive problem with that, firstly from a sustainable angle and secondly from a depth level.

 

We have only ever 'gone big' if you want to call it that after selling off the family silver. Torres, Suarez, Sterling, Coutinho. The problem with that is, you may get a 1 in 1 out scenario or in coutinhos case a 2 in 1 out (and lets be honest we were fortunate to get 140 million for him) which constantly keeps us in the same position, over and over. Mane, Salah or Firmino is next, mark my words.

 

You can't tell me that Klopp is such a perfectionist, he actually wants his job to be harder? Every manager would like more quality to work with and my problem is, when push comes to shove he doesn't get it, its always a compromise of sorts. Werner should have been bought its as simple as that. We have been banking profits for 3 years now and spending nothing, to be told we are skint is an insult.

 

Every year its the same, if its not corona, its contracts or low balling or training facilities or any other such garbage. The bottom line is. these guys don't like buying players. They hate the high fees and the high wages, which is different to american sports so they do as little as they can get away with, which is where Jurgen's genius comes to the fore.

 

On Thursday the old squad problems reared their head again. When we rely on two injury prone centre halves, no cover at left back, no one to come on and freshen things up when the front three are off their game. And its been like that for years. remember african nations when we lost Mane and had no cover and basically threw in the cup comps? Or last year when we had no right back and so Henderson played there and we drew a few crucial matches? Or Rogers having the depth of a cream cracker on the bench, going for the title, losing henderson and having to rely on Cissoko, Toure and fucking Moses? We rely on the same 13 players being fit and healthy over the long run for years and now is the time to stop that and to increase the quality across the squad.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

All this talk of 'they saved us' is like something you would expect from a 10 year old. They did didly squat. They saw a potentially profitable asset going cheap and they took advantage of it. They are not arsed about you or me, or the working class fella who just wants to take his two young kids to their first game. They don't give a stuff about that, as long as someone, anyone is buying merchandise and paying top dollar for tickets and hospitality.

 

As far as FSGOUT is concerned, I'm not bothered either way. In fact they can make as much money off us as they like, as long as a good portion is reinvested into the playing side of things, you know, the important bit of a football club.

 

But thats where it falls down for me and where a majority of our fans get a bit blind. We are sell to buy. That policy is the way we deal with transfers and I have a massive problem with that, firstly from a sustainable angle and secondly from a depth level.

 

We have only ever 'gone big' if you want to call it that after selling off the family silver. Torres, Suarez, Sterling, Coutinho. The problem with that is, you may get a 1 in 1 out scenario or in coutinhos case a 2 in 1 out (and lets be honest we were fortunate to get 140 million for him) which constantly keeps us in the same position, over and over. Mane, Salah or Firmino is next, mark my words.

 

You can't tell me that Klopp is such a perfectionist, he actually wants his job to be harder? Every manager would like more quality to work with and my problem is, when push comes to shove he doesn't get it, its always a compromise of sorts. Werner should have been bought its as simple as that. We have been banking profits for 3 years now and spending nothing, to be told we are skint is an insult.

 

Every year its the same, if its not corona, its contracts or low balling or training facilities or any other such garbage. The bottom line is. these guys don't like buying players. They hate the high fees and the high wages, which is different to american sports so they do as little as they can get away with, which is where Jurgen's genius comes to the fore.

 

On Thursday the old squad problems reared their head again. When we rely on two injury prone centre halves, no cover at left back, no one to come on and freshen things up when the front three are off their game. And its been like that for years. remember african nations when we lost Mane and had no cover and basically threw in the cup comps? Or last year when we had no right back and so Henderson played there and we drew a few crucial matches? Or Rogers having the depth of a cream cracker on the bench, going for the title, losing henderson and having to rely on Cissoko, Toure and fucking Moses? We rely on the same 13 players being fit and healthy over the long run for years and now is the time to stop that and to increase the quality across the squad.

I don't see a thing wrong with this post.

It's not unfair or odd to question, or criticise, the ownership while revelling in the success that Klopp has brought us.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

 

Come on. The people on here who want FSG out are clever enough in the main not to actually post 'FSG out' especially when we've just won our first title in 30 years. Go elsewhere and you will see that.

 

Look, despite what people may think, Im not on FSG's payroll (wish I was, Id be quids in!). Are they a bunch of cunts who are just interested in money and not football? That argument falls down when you look at the club's value now to when they bought it. Whichever way you look at it that's over a $1billion profit. I think any cunt only in it for the money would take that and run especially when you consider the money city can throw around, Abramovich has and what the glazers could.

 

Bottom line is they have a different way of doing it. Im more than happy we arent FSG's or rather John Henry's play thing like city, chelsea and PSG are to their respective owners. Self sufficiency is the way forward.

 

Have they made mistakes? Sure, loads. But the thing is they have corrected them. yep, they appointed Jurgen. They wanted him before Rodgers. Do they get the kudos for that? I dont know, does John Smith for appointing Bob, Joe and Kenny? I dont know.

 

But like I said before, what might have been if FSG's low ball offer had been rejected, we could be basking in the glorious ownership of Peter Lim, stripped by Gillet's hedge fund bankers, still bumbling around 5th or 6th with a David Moores clone, have been in administration and fighting our way out of the Championship or any other scenario you care to think of.

 

Each to their own.

So nobody has said fsg out and you're choosing to read between the lines? 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding some of the rest of your post, but are you saying because they haven't sold means they're not here for the money? All that means is nobody has met their asking price. They're not stupid, with options around streaming, maybe individual club rights rather than a single premier league solution and a possible European super League, there is lots and lots of options for growth and increasing the club's value. The owners have even said they're interested in selling a percentage of the club and I think Barclays investment bank is still working on it, which is actually the model they've employed with the Red Sox/NESV. Just follow the path the New York Times took with their investment in NESV. There's your model right there. They're an investment fund, they're not here for anything but money. LFC will have its price (either a few percent or the whole club) just like any player on the books does - that price will move an an almost daily basis, but there'll always be a price. 

 

I'd sooner they weren't our owners, because I would like owners who have an emotional investment in the club, I believe that's what sport is about - that doesn't mean just any random LFC fan, but a genuine responsible owner who cares. Once it's just a business, well it's just a business. It's like saying you support Fuller's and your mortal enemy is greene king. I love beer, but I don't feel the need to choose one over another other than its taste. Sport expects  a completely different investment from its customers and as a consequence I'd like a different type of investment from the owners.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moo said:

I don't see a thing wrong with this post.

It's not unfair or odd to question, or criticise, the ownership while revelling in the success that Klopp has brought us.

Honestly FSG are welcome to the profits they make. They strike the business deals and they run the Club in a successful manner, I have no problem with that AT ALL.

 

Their stakeholders will make their cash if and when they decide to sell up, so whilst they won't be taking out of the Club presently (thats not how hedge fund works) they are banking a profit for a later date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

So nobody has said fsg out and you're choosing to read between the lines? 

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding some of the rest of your post, but are you saying because they haven't sold means they're not here for the money? All that means is nobody has met their asking price. They're not stupid, with options around streaming, maybe individual club rights rather than a single premier league solution and a possible European super League, there is lots and lots of options for growth and increasing the club's value. The owners have even said they're interested in selling a percentage of the club and I think Barclays investment bank is still working on it, which is actually the model they've employed with the Red Sox/NESV. Just follow the path the New York Times took with their investment in NESV. There's your model right there. They're an investment fund, they're not here for anything but money. LFC will have its price (either a few percent or the whole club) just like any player on the books does - that price will move an an almost daily basis, but there'll always be a price. 

 

I'd sooner they weren't our owners, because I would like owners who have an emotional investment in the club, I believe that's what sport is about - that doesn't mean just any random LFC fan, but a genuine responsible owner who cares. Once it's just a business, well it's just a business. It's like saying you support Fuller's and your mortal enemy is greene king. I love beer, but I don't feel the need to choose one over another other than its taste. Sport expects  a completely different investment from its customers and as a consequence I'd like a different type of investment from the owners.

Superb Gaul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

 

I'd sooner they weren't our owners, because I would like owners who have an emotional investment in the club,

Got to disagree with this. Moores had an emotional attachment to this club, just like Kenwright at Everton or even the Daves at West Ham. Are there any successful fan/owners in the Premier League? Emotional attachments tend to get in the way of clear decision making.

 

I want owners who are competent and who are committed to invest in success as their way of generating profit. Whether they wear LFC pyjamas is neither here nor there.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeefStroganoff said:

All this talk of 'they saved us' is like something you would expect from a 10 year old. They did didly squat. They saw a potentially profitable asset going cheap and they took advantage of it. They are not arsed about you or me, or the working class fella who just wants to take his two young kids to their first game. They don't give a stuff about that, as long as someone, anyone is buying merchandise and paying top dollar for tickets and hospitality.

 

As far as FSGOUT is concerned, I'm not bothered either way. In fact they can make as much money off us as they like, as long as a good portion is reinvested into the playing side of things, you know, the important bit of a football club.

 

But thats where it falls down for me and where a majority of our fans get a bit blind. We are sell to buy. That policy is the way we deal with transfers and I have a massive problem with that, firstly from a sustainable angle and secondly from a depth level.

 

We have only ever 'gone big' if you want to call it that after selling off the family silver. Torres, Suarez, Sterling, Coutinho. The problem with that is, you may get a 1 in 1 out scenario or in coutinhos case a 2 in 1 out (and lets be honest we were fortunate to get 140 million for him) which constantly keeps us in the same position, over and over. Mane, Salah or Firmino is next, mark my words.

 

You can't tell me that Klopp is such a perfectionist, he actually wants his job to be harder? Every manager would like more quality to work with and my problem is, when push comes to shove he doesn't get it, its always a compromise of sorts. Werner should have been bought its as simple as that. We have been banking profits for 3 years now and spending nothing, to be told we are skint is an insult.

 

Every year its the same, if its not corona, its contracts or low balling or training facilities or any other such garbage. The bottom line is. these guys don't like buying players. They hate the high fees and the high wages, which is different to american sports so they do as little as they can get away with, which is where Jurgen's genius comes to the fore.

 

On Thursday the old squad problems reared their head again. When we rely on two injury prone centre halves, no cover at left back, no one to come on and freshen things up when the front three are off their game. And its been like that for years. remember african nations when we lost Mane and had no cover and basically threw in the cup comps? Or last year when we had no right back and so Henderson played there and we drew a few crucial matches? Or Rogers having the depth of a cream cracker on the bench, going for the title, losing henderson and having to rely on Cissoko, Toure and fucking Moses? We rely on the same 13 players being fit and healthy over the long run for years and now is the time to stop that and to increase the quality across the squad.

Probably your best post on the forum so far. You recognise that the owners are about as good as we can expect in the modern game but also question the squad depth while recognising the brilliance of those players and manager to achieve what they have. Very balanced overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Got to disagree with this. Moores had an emotional attachment to this club, just like Kenwright at Everton or even the Daves at West Ham. Are there any successful fan/owners in the Premier League? Emotional attachments tend to get in the way of clear decision making.

 

I want owners who are competent and who are committed to invest in success as their way of generating profit. Whether they wear LFC pyjamas is neither here nor there.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. When there's no emotional attachment from the ownership, you're just heading to becoming any other entertainment company. Nothing is done for the benefit of the product and only for the quality of the balance sheet. You speak like major companies over the years have never failed because they were run by emotionless businessmen, except business is littered with far more failure than success.

 

Just because someone isn't emotionally attached does not make their decisions in the best interests of the product. I'm not doubting fsg are good businessmen I just think they're more interested in the balance sheet than the team sheet. And because of sports unique ability to have unwavering loyalty regardless of the quality of the product, it allows the ownership not invest as any other brand would have to. If Samsung stopped making good phones, people would just buy another brand, just as they did with Nokia or Motorola.

1 hour ago, TheHowieLama said:

Maybe 40 or 50 years ago. What top teams in the world have this now?

Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich are all owned by fans as far as I know, perhaps I'm wrong. In this country obviously the best "franchises" have been gobbled up by American businessmen because we didn't have the controls in place for that not to happen, in fact with allowing clubs to list on the stock exchange in the 80s and 90s we drove ourselves to this destination. The wealth in football is such now where it would feel impossible for a local guy to own it as it's out of the reach of virtually every British born person who lives in this country. These clubs are vehicles for making money for its shareholders just like Weetabix is. I'm not saying I don't realise clubs are out of the reach of fan ownership now. However it doesn't mean I don't wish for a different state of affairs. What's happening over at Wigan right now is another direct consequence of running sporting ventures for the benefit of those who have little or no interest in the product their company creates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

"FSG out" reminds me of "Rafa out". You need to think carefully about who you want to come in as a replacement. 

 

The club is successful, well run and financially sound and there's a clear intention of wanting to keep the fans happy. I don't really want much more from the owners. 


Nothing wrong with Rafa out, he had not won anything since 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Probably your best post on the forum so far. You recognise that the owners are about as good as we can expect in the modern game but also question the squad depth while recognising the brilliance of those players and manager to achieve what they have. Very balanced overall.

Appreciated Vlad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

 

Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich

I wouldn't hold either Real or Barca up as enviable - the whole thing is a gubmint sham there - maybe you could say Osasuna is a well run soci style club.

 

Bayern is head shoulders above all in that regard, but again the country and the city have plowed billions into them over the years. And having "members" like Adidas, Allianz and Audi probably helps.

Dortmund is as well - the Germans have done quite well at the "sports club" thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I wouldn't hold either Real or Barca up as enviable - the whole thing is a gubmint sham there - maybe you could say Osasuna is a well run soci style club.

 

Bayern is head shoulders above all in that regard, but again the country and the city have plowed billions into them over the years. And having "members" like Adidas, Allianz and Audi probably helps.

Dortmund is as well - the Germans have done quite well at the "sports club" thing. 

I'm not saying having Adidas, Audi or allianz doesn't help. In fact it proves my point. They're there for guidance and not influential enough to make business only decisions. In fact back in the day Rick Parry was on the right lines when he brought Granada in, he just backed the wrong horse. 

 

And while real and Barca may be a bunch of arrogant cunts, you asked which major clubs globally are run by people emotionally attached. They are and are successful. Their balance sheets are shite, but their trophy cabinets are loaded and have been for a long time using that model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

@The Gaul

 

I think you are missing the main point - which is local and federal governments decades of financial support to those three in particular.

I am not missing the point at all. You claimed no top sides were run by people with emotional attachments, when clearly there is, they just have a different way to operate other than being a limited company. I can add juventus with the agnelli family, although I honestly don't know how much of fiat Chrysler they own, but as far as I'm aware they run both fiat and juve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Gaul said:

I am not missing the point at all. You claimed no top sides were run by people with emotional attachments, when clearly there is, they just have a different way to operate other than being a limited company. I can add juventus with the agnelli family, although I honestly don't know how much of fiat Chrysler they own, but as far as I'm aware they run both fiat and juve. 

TBH we were speaking about "owners" in the context of FSG and who could come into our club. Yes there are a few very successful "sporting clubs" who started down a very different path over 100 years ago. If a club today could get anywhere near the government backing of any of those mentioned they would have a good chance of it as well. But they can't.

 

Juve is publicly traded isn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

TBH we were speaking about "owners" in the context of FSG and who could come into our club. Yes there are a few very successful "sporting clubs" who started down a very different path over 100 years ago. If a club today could get anywhere near the government backing of any of those mentioned they would have a good chance of it as well. But they can't.

 

Juve is publicly traded isn't it? 

I completely agree now we are where we are, it's very difficult to roll the clock back. It doesn't mean where we are is right or I have to be happy about it. Equally, I wasn't arsed what fsg did regarding furloughing. I thought it was bad PR, but I didn't get the shock around it. They've tried to milk every single cent since they've got here, why would that be any different. They're herefor the money, so they're going to try and make as much as they can. 

 

Juve are listed for sure, but I think the agnelli family have a controlling stake and don't trade their shares in the club. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Gaul said:

They've tried to milk every single cent since they've got here, why would that be any different.They're here for the money, so they're going to try and make as much as they can. 

 

I think this is the fallacy. They are running a business, efficiently. Maybe in that instance, ruthlessly, but certainly quite effectively. And, on the field we are at the best we have been in a dogs age.

They are not milking anything. They don't "make" any money until they sell.

The only thing to have a moan about is they are not putting in additional funds - which no one wanted when they first arrived.

Need to wait and see how excited they are moving forward with the stadium expansion after this virus stuff, but stadium costs really took it out of Arsenal competitively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

I think this is the fallacy. They are running a business, efficiently. Maybe in that instance, ruthlessly, but certainly quite effectively. And, on the field we are at the best we have been in a dogs age.

They are not milking anything. They don't "make" any money until they sell.

The only thing to have a moan about is they are not putting in additional funds - which no one wanted when they first arrived.

Need to wait and see how excited they are moving forward with the stadium expansion after this virus stuff, but stadium costs really took it out of Arsenal competitively. 

I don't dispute they're running the business efficiently for the balance sheet. But they're made some pretty big PR mis-steps in doing so (for relatively small amounts of money) which they've had to roll back from, furlough and ticket prices spring to mind, but I'm sure there's been another couple of things I just can't quite think in my semi hungover state. They do this stuff because they don't give a fuck and want to get away with whatever they can. They do however see the value in not becoming Mike Ashley and completely alienating the fan base, so on occasion they've back tracked because of the bad PR. 

 

As for they don't make money till they sell, well that's their business model and a perfectly legitimate one. I don't see there's any credit to be given for that, it's literally the path they choose to make money. They don't have to sell 100% either to recover their money, they could sell 10% today and have their original investment back. 

 

And as for not putting in additional funds - actually I think they should have done that at the start. The bought a business in distress, I don't think it would have been unreasonable for them to put something in to turn around the fortunes. However, I'd have settled for them doing the 1 thing they promised when they walked through the door, which is to deliver a 60k stadium. I'm happy they've chosen not to leave anfield, but that doesn't mean the only real beneficiaries should be hospitality brigade. It's taken them 10 years to get half way to the 60k from where they were and now things are on pause again because of corona. Now that's feels ok if it didn't take us 10 years to just get some pictures of the Annie road. Even that tight cunt down at spurs has identified a location and built a brand new stadium in that time. There's just no excuse for it. It's not like we're talking about billions here, it's the transfer fee and not even the wages of a decent footballer. I might even be more forgiving if we bought players without selling, but they don't do that either. Increased capacity pays for itself. Not as quickly as fsg want in the case of the road end (17 years according to the club, but then we've gone nowhere with that stand in 10 years, we could be half way done by now), but it does pay for itself. I just don't think the lethargic approach is about anything other than they just don't want to do it. When they came in they promised to sort the stadium, to under promise and over deliver. It seems they made 1 promise and never delivered. I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected them to put in some investment to move the stadium forward in a more timely manner. And I don't moan about the stadium because of my own self interest. I have a season ticket and access to almost as much hospitality as I want. But I want the most reds possible to watch their team. That was the promise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I wouldn't want FSG out is because it's almost certain we'd end up with someone far worse.

 

There's virtually no such thing as good football club owners any more, because the amount of money involved prevents it. They all want to make as much as they can and it usually involves fleecing the fans in whatever ways they can get away with.

 

You can only get your hands on one of the big clubs if you're a billionaire or part of a group that has billions. And how many super rich people are motivated by anything than becoming even richer? The exception to that would be the owners of City and PSG, who have other reasons for wanting to own clubs that are even more unpalatable than greed.

 

So, while there are things I don't like about FSG I mostly just accept it because we could be a lot worse off, and probably will be when they eventually sell up.

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple fact is that they're supremely good at running sports teams. Winners in baseball and football in a pretty short period of time using cutting edge methods, data, hiring great people, etc... Yeah, they're soulless investment bankers who are a bit tone deaf and bad at PR, but in the grand scheme of things, they're winners. That's pretty much all that needs to be said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...