Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Scott_M]

From The Athletic today, I've tried to format as best I can...

 

Quote

Have Liverpool risen above Manchester United to be the third-biggest revenue-generating club in the world?

Yes, and this is the first time they have finished above their arch-rivals in the 26 years Deloitte has been recording and analysing the financial performance of clubs.

 

The figures in the report show Liverpool recorded revenues of €701.7million (£594.3m*) for the 2021-22 season, a significant increase from €550.4m (£487.4m) in the previous one.

 

Comparatively, after being very close to each other in the 2020-21 table, United also experienced a post-pandemic rebound but did not see the same scale of increase (18 per cent to Liverpool’s 22 per cent), recording a revenue of €688.6million (£583.2m) — up from €558m (£494.1m) in the previous year. So, Liverpool edged in front.

 

How much do Liverpool make and how have they done that?

Before we break down the huge revenue, it is important to note these figures do not include player trading. Rather, this is purely based on three strands: broadcast, commercial and matchday income.

 

Liverpool increased in all three areas to record their highest totals. They brought in €112million from matchday revenue, €314m from broadcast money and €275m in commercial income.

 

Liverpool were lagging behind in matchday revenue when FSG arrived in 2010 but the club’s investment in the new Main Stand at Anfield continues to reap the benefits. They were among only five clubs to have matchday revenue above €100million — which was helped by Liverpool competing in 63 games over the course of 2021-22. Of those matches, 30 were at home —, four more than in 2018-19, which brought in €95m.

 

This revenue stream will continue to grow from August, with the extension of the Anfield Road end adding a further 6,000 seats to the capacity.

 

Liverpool’s tilt at a historic quadruple meant they gained plenty of prize money, and therefore broadcast revenue, on their way to three finals, especially the Champions League final, as well as another second-place finish in the Premier League.

They brought in €314million from broadcast partners during 2021-22, which was an increase of €10m from the season before, and €15m more than the pre-pandemic levels of 2018-19. The club look set to take a hit in this area this season, with less success and a potentially much lower final league position, which influences the size of merit payments received when the campaign ends.

 

It also appears Liverpool are beginning to benefit from a lucrative kit deal they signed with Nike in 2020, as their commercial income increased by €37million to €275m.

 

The hope is this will continue to grow with Standard Chartered’s new front-of-shirt sponsorship deal beginning next season and they will also be looking for a sleeve partner as their deal with Expedia expires in the summer.

 

Which clubs have they overtaken and why?

As well as Manchester United, Liverpool also jumped ahead of Paris Saint-Germain (€654.2million), Bayern Munich (€653.6m) and Barcelona (€638.2 million).

 

The Champions League final run, and subsequent broadcast money windfall, played a significant role in them overtaking four elite clubs.

 

United, for example, brought in more matchday revenue (€126million) and commercial revenue (€309m), but generated significantly less broadcast money (€254m) after a sixth-place Premier League finish and making a round of 16 exit from the Champions League.

 

The Premier League’s popularity and global TV deals mean its clubs continue to bring in more money than their European counterparts — 11 of the top 20 clubs on the Deloitte list are from England’s top division and 16 (80 per cent of the division) from the top 30.

 

Therefore, while Paris Saint-Germain earned significantly more in commercial (€383million) and matchday revenue (€132m), they received significantly less than Liverpool in broadcast money (€139m).

 

Bayern also brought in over €100million more commercially than Liverpool (€378m to €275m), but got significantly less from both matchday revenue (€68m) and broadcast income (€207m).

 

Those two clubs went out at the last-16 and quarter-final stages of the Champions League respectively. Barcelona on the other hand, had to settle for a Europa League knockout-phase spot after failing to advance from the Champions League’s group stage significantly affecting the total broadcast money arriving at Camp Nou, which ended up being €251million — €39m less than the previous season.

 

The Catalan side’s commercial revenue is yet to return to pre-pandemic levels, when it was as high as €384million.

While teams around them saw a significant increase compared to last season, Barcelona’s only rose by €7m.

So why aren’t they spending loads on transfers?

On the surface, Liverpool have spent a significant amount of money on transfers this season with Darwin Nunez the most expensive for an initial £65million, and the most recent arrival, Cody Gakpo, costing them an initial £37m. They also added Calvin Ramsay and Fabio Carvalho in permanent deals, and signed Arthur on loan.

 

However, when you consider they sold Sadio Mane, Neco Williams, Takumi Minamino and Ben Davies for around a combined £70million, their net spend sits at around £50m.

 

The analysis by Deloitte does not paint the full picture because it does not include player-trading profits.

Given Liverpool’s prudence in the market and sensible net spend every year, it would not affect their revenue significantly, but it would add to it.

 

FSG has never been an ownership group that keeps throwing its own money at the club to facilitate transfers. It has always run Liverpool prudently, with the money the club generates being reinvested as part of a self-sustaining business model.

This is different to what Arsenal and Chelsea have done this season, for example, with the Kroenke family gambling on investment to try to push the north Londoners back into the Champions League, while Todd Boehly and company have looked to re-shape the squad at Stamford Bridge entirely by exploiting the amortisation process and signing players to long-term deals.

 

It points to why FSG has considered selling Liverpool and is seeking investment in part to facilitate a new rebuild as the side that has been the foundation of the club’s recent successes moves on.

 

In recent years, led by Michael Edwards, Liverpool have not only recruited smartly but also sold well. But there are fewer saleable players now. Without a Philippe Coutinho to help bankroll additions either, as his sale to Barcelona did when Liverpool signed Virgil van Dijk and Alisson in record-breaking deals, that is more difficult.

 

What it does not mean is they cannot spend at all; and it raises a bigger question about the scouting department and trying to find lower-priced gems. Not every transfer has to be a huge outlay.

 

What are they spending money on?

This is the key question — or more specifically: where is the money going?

Since arriving, FSG has not taken money out of the club, as the Glazer family have at Manchester United. It has all been reinvested.

 

The biggest outgoing is wages which, according to the Deloitte Money League, soared to £368.5million for last season, up from £314.5m in 2020-21. That wage bill is one of the highest in world football.

 

It equates to 62 per cent of revenue. That is a healthy percentage for football clubs, but when you take it away from the £594.3m revenue generated, it eats into a large chunk of it.

 

Liverpool’s incentivised contracts reward players for success, which they had plenty of last season; that will have contributed to this, along with new deals for Fabinho, Van Dijk and Trent Alexander-Arnold in 2021.

Mohamed Salah’s new bumper contract, signed last summer, will also come into play for this season’s accounts.

There are also the day-to-day costs which get forgotten about, from the squad’s travel to matches to the electricity bills, as well as tax payments.

 

Liverpool spent £22.1m on agent fees, while the amortisation of player registrations sat at £107.8m from the 2020-21 season.

 

Amortisation is an accounting practice for writing down the cost of acquiring assets, with the key ones in the case of football clubs being the players.

 

It represents the outlay on incomings, with the players’ value spread out across the contracts they sign. So if Liverpool bought a player for £50million and gave him a five-year contract, the amortisation would be £10m each year, as their value decreases from £50m to £40m the following year and so on. It is another big cost of doing business for a club and usually makes up the second biggest cost after wages.

 

The £80million Anfield Road development has been financed by the club and the building of their £50m new training ground was another infrastructure cost.

 

It provides some explanation as to why, even in recent years, Liverpool’s spending has not produced a significant net spend outlay.

 

COVID-19 was a significant factor but even before that, Liverpool signed only Minamino, Adrian, Harvey Elliott and Sepp van den Berg in the summer window that followed their 2018-19 Champions League final win.

How does their transfer spend compare with other clubs around them?

According to the website Transfermarkt, Liverpool spent £81.27million last summer, which was the lowest of the ‘Big Six’ by a fair margin.

 

Arsenal were the second lowest (£118.9m) followed by Manchester City (£125.6m), Tottenham Hotspur (£152.9m), Manchester United (£214.2m) and the biggest spenders, Chelsea (£253.79m).

 

What best illustrates Liverpool’s situation is the clubs’ corresponding net spends.

While their net spend was £8.6m, only City’s was lower as they made an £18.4m profit. Meanwhile, Arsenal (£97.4m), Tottenham (£118m), United (£203.9m) and Chelsea (£204.5m) had significantly higher net spends.

If we look further back, Twitter account Swiss Ramble posted a thread from April 2021, detailing net spend in the Premier League between 2015-16 and 2019-20, and Liverpool’s was £278million. It was the sixth highest over that period, but lower than Chelsea (£317m), Arsenal (£363m) and more significantly less than those of United (£655m) and City (£704m).

 

The last time Liverpool registered a significant net spend was in the summer of 2018, which included deals for Alisson, Fabinho, Naby Keita and Xherdan Shaqiri and, according to Transfermarkt, led to a net spend of £140.9million.

It is the type of summer Liverpool now need again to shape the squad.

 

The pursuit of Borussia Dortmund’s England midfielder Jude Bellingham will be the big test to see if FSG remains all in and willing to push the boat out and spend outside of its self-sustaining model.

 

Is this a financial fair play (FFP) issue too?

In short, no. 

 

Liverpool are in no danger of FFP breaches even with the effects of COVID-19, which saw the club make losses in each of the last two years of accounts. 

 

Over the 12 years of FSG’s ownership, they have made a loss six times and a profit on five occasions, including the huge £106million net profit in 2017-18 — which can partly explain the spending of the following summer mentioned above. 

In total, FSG made £27.3million in profit between 2010-2021, largely due to the work it had to do when it inherited the club to turn it around and begin to grow it on and off the pitch. 

 

Even with UEFA’s updated FFP rules, Liverpool have little to worry about.

 

The key element of the new regulations is the “squad cost control”, which is basically a soft salary cap. Like the existing “break-even” limit, it works by tying the amount you can spend on your team to how much you earn but it is a more sophisticated and targeted measure than the old rule.

 

Clubs will only be allowed to spend 70 per cent of revenue on the team. This is calculated by adding up the wage bills for the squad and coaching staff, and how much the club spent on signing players in that season, including agents’ fees, subtracting any profits made from sales, and working out what the figure all that gives you is as a percentage of total revenues.

 

If we were to apply that formula to Liverpool’s last set of publicly available accounts — the ones for the 2020-21 season, when they made a small loss — the result would be 73.4 per cent.

 

However, we know revenue shot up by 22 per cent last season and can assume costs were broadly similar. So, the numbers which make up the numerator in that sum did not change much but the bigger number in the denominator did, which will bring Liverpool under that 70 per cent limit.

 

Furthermore, clubs do not even need to get below that target this season, because the new rule is being phased in: it’s 90 per cent next season, then 80 per cent in 2024-25, before reaching the desired goal in 2025-26.

 

 

To me, this is such a nothing article.

 

I've been clear that I think FSG have been good for the club and a lot of the stuff written about them is bollocks, even so, articles on this get on my pip - it literally answers nothing.

 

I don't care about our rivals spending, I only care about us and why we aren't addressing our issues. 

 

Saying the Deloitte figures is fine, then saying we also pay agents fee's, electricity, travel to games, tax etc is ridiculous. Surely other clubs pay these as well, so what is the point in mentioning it?

 

Similarly, amortisation. Although it's handy to explain to people who might not understand it, what it is. It doesn't explain what we spend each year or how it compares to other clubs. Surely it isn't massively much, certainly not compared to our rivals.

 

The only difference I can see are:

 

1. FSG don't put money in. Fine, they never have. They also don't take out. No problems.
2. The ARE / Kirkby re-developments, costing £130m. To me, thats a fucking sizeable figure not to ask any questions on - thats likely Bellingham or Caicedo & Kone / Thuram in this window.

I don't have an issue with the club paying for the redevelopments, I would like to know...

• Why this hasn’t been, like the Main Stand, financed by FSG and paid back by the club at (I assume) a longer term and cheaper rate?
• How does this outlay effect other areas of the club?
• When will this £130m be paid back? Is this stopping us fixing our issues?
• How would levels of debt impact any sale / investment?
• Does the club financing the redevelopments itself help FSG expand in other sports (NBA / NFL)?

 

Fucking Athletic and that Burger / Frog faced gimp Pearce. I'm sure they have good contacts and when they write an easy story (ie player interest etc) I'm sure it's accurate. They literally don't write anything as a good exclusive and for example, Joyce etc will break it at the same time.

 

Why aren't they asking or answering these difficult questions? 

 

[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.