Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Daisy]

Cunts

[Numero Veinticinco]

Thanks for linking that Scott. I think they've run the club well in terms of managing and building a business. Actually, exceptionally well as evidenced by us overtaking the Mancs. That said, if we don't have the money to compete because they're up against cheating cunts, then we really do have a choice. We accept our fate and win the 'we did it the right way' badge, or we sell to the guys with the cheat codes. 

[Daisy]

Hold on. Is Arsenal cheating? 

[Scott_M]

4 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Thanks for linking that Scott. I think they've run the club well in terms of managing and building a business. Actually, exceptionally well as evidenced by us overtaking the Mancs. That said, if we don't have the money to compete because they're up against cheating cunts, then we really do have a choice. We accept our fate and win the 'we did it the right way' badge, or we sell to the guys with the cheat codes. 

My issue us that we’re not trying to compete to the best of our ability.
 

I agree with your comments on FFP not restricting others, as above, it shouldn’t be restricting us.
 

If we wanted Caicedo & Enzo Fernandez this month, we seemingly have the money (or wriggle room) to pull it off.
 

Take the ARE / Kirkby costs away and there is significantly more again. 
 

Given no details on the financing of the ARE / Kirkby to go on, I was surprised to read this week it hadn’t been done the same as the Main Stand with a preferable FSG loan.

 

I’m not throwing in another conspiracy theory and passing it off a fact that any loan / debt from us would hinder them buying an NBA or NFL team, although I do think it’s a question worth asking. 
 

If we are still paying them back money from the Main Stand (which I assume we are) and now have these other redevelopments to pay for, letting supporters know we’re paying £XXm per year. It would make the current situation of just writing this season off easier to swallow. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Scott_M said:

My issue us that we’re not trying to compete to the best of our ability.
 

I agree with your comments on FFP not restricting others, as above, it shouldn’t be restricting us.
 

If we wanted Caicedo & Enzo Fernandez this month, we seemingly have the money (or wriggle room) to pull it off.
 

Take the ARE / Kirkby costs away and there is significantly more again. 
 

Given no details on the financing of the ARE / Kirkby to go on, I was surprised to read this week it hadn’t been done the same as the Main Stand with a preferable FSG loan.

 

I’m not throwing in another conspiracy theory and passing it off a fact that any loan / debt from us would hinder them buying an NBA or NFL team, although I do think it’s a question worth asking. 
 

If we are still paying them back money from the Main Stand (which I assume we are) and now have these other redevelopments to pay for, letting supporters know we’re paying £XXm per year. It would make the current situation of just writing this season off easier to swallow. 

 

Seems a completely reasonable request to me. In fact, it's strange they've not communicated that because it'd be a bit of a 'get out of jail free' card for them. You would say 'yeah, well, it's understandable because...' but it's not is it. It's window after window that we are either not spending enough or not spending in the right areas. 

[dockers_strike]

4 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

My issue us that we’re not trying to compete to the best of our ability.
 

I agree with your comments on FFP not restricting others, as above, it shouldn’t be restricting us.
 

If we wanted Caicedo & Enzo Fernandez this month, we seemingly have the money (or wriggle room) to pull it off.
 

Take the ARE / Kirkby costs away and there is significantly more again. 
 

Given no details on the financing of the ARE / Kirkby to go on, I was surprised to read this week it hadn’t been done the same as the Main Stand with a preferable FSG loan.

 

I’m not throwing in another conspiracy theory and passing it off a fact that any loan / debt from us would hinder them buying an NBA or NFL team, although I do think it’s a question worth asking. 
 

If we are still paying them back money from the Main Stand (which I assume we are) and now have these other redevelopments to pay for, letting supporters know we’re paying £XXm per year. It would make the current situation of just writing this season off easier to swallow. 

 

It was known from day 1 that the club was self financing the AXA and ARE unlike the Main Stand. These are all infrastructure projects that dont count towards FFP spending limits.

 

I guess the reason they didnt use a loan for the ARE is interest rates have shot up which would make the project more expensive and the club having higher repayments.

[Scott_M]

7 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

 

It was known from day 1 that the club was self financing the AXA and ARE unlike the Main Stand. These are all infrastructure projects that dont count towards FFP spending limits.

 

I guess the reason they didnt use a loan for the ARE is interest rates have shot up which would make the project more expensive and the club having higher repayments.

I never heard about the club self financing Kirkby / ARE. 
 

Has the club taken a loan out from a bank or is it paying it directly from its own coffers?

 

If it’s directly from its own coffers, then I have no problem with it, it would be handy to know. 

[Scott_M]

9 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

Seems a completely reasonable request to me. In fact, it's strange they've not communicated that because it'd be a bit of a 'get out of jail free' card for them. You would say 'yeah, well, it's understandable because...' but it's not is it. It's window after window that we are either not spending enough or not spending in the right areas. 

Unless we’ve been putting money aside for it since it was announced, which was 2019?

If this was the case then it’s completely understandable. I get supporters don’t necessarily get to know this information, which I appreciate, I’d would rather articles saying “Liverpool have been saving £30m per year to redevelop the ARE / Kirkby” than the bollocks in The Athletic today pinning it all on costs which all other clubs as pay, which doesn’t explain any of the lack of spending. 

 

[dockers_strike]

3 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

I never heard about the club self financing Kirkby / ARE. 
 

Has the club taken a loan out from a bank or is it paying it directly from its own coffers?

 

If it’s directly from its own coffers, then I have no problem with it, it would be handy to know. 

 

Im not trying to be smart after the event but it was said at the time of building the AXA and ARE that the club would be self financing the deals and not like they did with the MS.

 

As far as I know, the club is using working capital that's FFP exempt to finance both projects. They may even be using some of the overdraft facility they have. I dont know whether financing on AXA has ended and the ARE financing taken over.

[3 Stacks]

I hope they do sell the club. I find their potential rationale for doing so logical. In contrast, I don't really get just trying to finding extra investment. 

 

I said after the Super League thing they should sell. It was transparent why we tried to be in it and if we couldn't, it was gonna be a slog to try to always run the club the right way in a broken financial system, although we had been successful doing it until then. The fact we got to where we got, speaks to their competence. 

 

But since then, the club has undoubtedly become less well run and this "will they won't they" state we're in isn't helping anyone. 

[Scott_M]

15 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

 

Im not trying to be smart after the event but it was said at the time of building the AXA and ARE that the club would be self financing the deals and not like they did with the MS.

 

As far as I know, the club is using working capital that's FFP exempt to finance both projects. They may even be using some of the overdraft facility they have. I dont know whether financing on AXA has ended and the ARE financing taken over.

No, didn’t think you were being smart, I had genuinely never heard of it. 
 

I was just reading in The Echo that AXA pay us £30m a year for the Kirkby and training gear sponsorship. So that money would count towards the increased revenue (as we’ve seen), it reality all the AXA money has done so far is paid for Kirkby. 
 

I get the off pitch redevelopment costs are exempt from FFP, is the money we’re paying for the ARE taking away from on pitch redevelopments we need?

 

If it is, then I wouldn’t complain about it. I would question why it’s been financed like this (FSG could have loaned us it or a bank interest rate would have been low in Q4’19, although getting an £80m loan in 2020 might have been difficult…) but ultimately it’s a completely understandable reason. 
 

I do think it’s a question that needs asking and answering because what has been reported so far doesn’t add up. 

 

[Barrington Womble]

28 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

 

It was known from day 1 that the club was self financing the AXA and ARE unlike the Main Stand. These are all infrastructure projects that dont count towards FFP spending limits.

 

I guess the reason they didnt use a loan for the ARE is interest rates have shot up which would make the project more expensive and the club having higher repayments.

interest rates won't have been very high at all when those projects started, so I doubt that played too much of a part. but the fact FSG want to expand their empire and perhaps don't have the liquidity to do so, probably means they need their assets to be as debt free and looking good to repay anything they may borrow to buy that baseball or NFL side they covet. 

[Scott_M]

2 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

interest rates won't have been very high at all when those projects started, so I doubt that played too much of a part. but the fact FSG want to expand their empire and perhaps don't have the liquidity to do so, probably means they need their assets to be as debt free and looking good to repay anything they may borrow to buy that baseball or NFL side they covet. 

Even though I’ve asked a similar question above, thinking it through rationally, shirely this won’t be the case. 
 

Realistically, FSG could have taken out £150m loan for the redevelopments, said we’d pay it back over 5 years and say the AXA £30m sponsorship would cover it. I doubt any ownership test (they have these in the US don’t they? Likely more stringent that the Premiership ones…) would fail them on a loan / debt which they had sponsorship to clear and would make more money in future. 
 

If they were doing as you said though, I would be livid. 

[lifetime fan]

Regardless of Kirby or the ARE the money is there and ffp allows us to spend a fucking shit load more than these tight cunts will.

[an tha]

The commercial revenue figures of the state owned clubs are absolute bollocks.

 

Laughable stuff.

[dockers_strike]

4 hours ago, Scott_M said:

No, didn’t think you were being smart, I had genuinely never heard of it. 
 

I was just reading in The Echo that AXA pay us £30m a year for the Kirkby and training gear sponsorship. So that money would count towards the increased revenue (as we’ve seen), it reality all the AXA money has done so far is paid for Kirkby. 
 

I get the off pitch redevelopment costs are exempt from FFP, is the money we’re paying for the ARE taking away from on pitch redevelopments we need?

 

If it is, then I wouldn’t complain about it. I would question why it’s been financed like this (FSG could have loaned us it or a bank interest rate would have been low in Q4’19, although getting an £80m loan in 2020 might have been difficult…) but ultimately it’s a completely understandable reason. 
 

I do think it’s a question that needs asking and answering because what has been reported so far doesn’t add up. 

 

 

I dont know if money for the ARE means team rebuilding has been impacted. But, at the same time loads of people have said they couldnt get tickets etc. So the ground is being increased by 7000 new seats.

 

Some people will say they still cant get tickets and I understand members saying they now dont qualify etc. But it's one of those things, do you say we arent expanding the ground because there's still people who cannot get in the ground and keep the capacity at 54000?

 

4 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

interest rates won't have been very high at all when those projects started, so I doubt that played too much of a part. but the fact FSG want to expand their empire and perhaps don't have the liquidity to do so, probably means they need their assets to be as debt free and looking good to repay anything they may borrow to buy that baseball or NFL side they covet. 

 

I agree about rates and the time the AXA was started. The ARE, Im not so sure.

 

Interest rates might not have been high but like lots of things, commercial loans interest rates have gone up substantially in the last 12-18 months. People say they could have got fixed rates at the start but lenders etc knew rates were going to start climbing and may have withdraw fixed rate deals and replaced those with variable rate.  I dont know, Im just summising.

 

The club does carry debt especially regarding their 'draw down' facility with bankers. End of the day, the more debt you have, the more you have to pay back. Even if the Glazers didnt take another penny out of united, they still have to service and pay interest on £500m(?) debt. If united didnt have to service that debt, they wouldnt need to get shit like Weghorst in on loan.

[Moo]

Well, I don't think I've ever said FSG out but have thrown many profanities their way as I wanted them to be better. I wanted them to make the most of the single best sporting (and business?) decision they've probably ever made. To fully support the best manager this club has had for a very long time.  Alas they have fallen short over and over and more people seem to be waking up to that.

And I still don't say FSG out because I don't want us to sell what's left of our soul.  If it near enough guaranteed success perhaps I might think differently but the competition is too high now, even if we were bought out by sports washers we'll just be one of several who will be competing at that level.  While we have Klopp we would stand a better chance than them all but for the sake of two or three years of Klopp with money I don't think what comes after would be remotely as "palatable".

 

Go fuck yourselves FSG.

[lifetime fan]

2 hours ago, an tha said:

The commercial revenue figures of the state owned clubs are absolute bollocks.

 

Laughable stuff.

Agreed. 
 

No one disputes the oil state owned clubs are doping to the max and are cheating cunts. 
 

I certainly don’t want to be owned by one of those states. 
 

But there’s a fucking massive difference between some of the boring, repetitive, FSG fanboy twats accusations that anyone who dare criticise the owners must want this. 
 

And actually wanting the current owners to allow the club to spend the money we generate. 
 

The revenues are there, FFP allows it. 
 

But if in these pricks minds you dare criticise the owners you want to be owned by the richest cunt state in the world. 

[TheHowieLama]

TBH if we are going to be owned by a cunt state then the richest cunt state in the world would be the only one acceptable.

 

Be a drag getting bought by the 14th richest cunt state in the world wouldn't it?

[Bobby Hundreds]

I'm not arsed about us being the richest in the league there's tonnes of footballers in the world, id just like us to invest in the team and invest properly when it's needed. The side is the whole point of the enterprise and it feels like currently we are run entirely as a spreadsheet for a bunch of suits, we may aswell be a battery farm or textile factory to the people that own us. 

[stringvest]

I don't believe the owner that we would all want actually exists.  We're going to have to like it or lump it.  FSG are probably better than the average owner.  They're not the Glazers, they're not H&G, they're competent business owners, give or take, and they are almost certainly running the strategy that they had from the start.  Whether they've done a good job from the fan perspective is almost completely irrelevant to them.  

 

Some of their commercial/financial objectives require the sort of on-field results that Klopp has achieved for them, but by no means all.   They will judge their success purely in financial terms at the end of the day.  Any platitudes to the fanbase are just that.  

 

But, short of going down the state-sponsored sportswashing route, the next owners we get will be similar to those we have, in terms of their objectives.  They might be marginally better from a fan perspective, they may be miles worse.  

[an tha]

2 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

Agreed. 
 

No one disputes the oil state owned clubs are doping to the max and are cheating cunts. 
 

I certainly don’t want to be owned by one of those states. 
 

But there’s a fucking massive difference between some of the boring, repetitive, FSG fanboy twats accusations that anyone who dare criticise the owners must want this. 
 

And actually wanting the current owners to allow the club to spend the money we generate. 
 

The revenues are there, FFP allows it. 
 

But if in these pricks minds you dare criticise the owners you want to be owned by the richest cunt state in the world. 

Like most things in life these days people are so polarised.

 

I don't want ownership like Man City but i do want my football club to win and to be fair we have been winning over the last 4/5 years - so in that respect we shouldn't be critical of the current model....

 

However it is my strong opinion that we have been more than a little complacent and failed to just make the improvements gradually from a position of strength that would keep us winning or seriously competing.

 

We have now IMO moved towards needing a rebuild rather than refreshing and the owners for me simply have to provide the money for it and it is no small beer - IMHO we need to spend circa 200m between now and the start of next season - where is blindingly obvious and well documented.

 

If they are not willing to back the manager and team with what is required then for me that means they no longer want to win or seriously compete and that for me means they should then leave the club.

 

The competition is becoming harder than ever, a mix of cheats and big clubs showing serious ambition - we have to show serious ambition too as a football club and back this fantastic manager and help him to build a new winning team.

[Chip Butty]

Are we there yet

[Red_or_Dead]

8 hours ago, Daisy said:

Hold on. Is Arsenal cheating? 

ARE Arsenal cheating ffs.

 

[Horus]

9 minutes ago, Chip Butty said:

Are we there yet

IS we there yet