Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Horus]

9 minutes ago, Chip Butty said:

Are we there yet

IS we there yet

[FrenchEyeGlass]

12 hours 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. 

 

Ah yes, all the cheats. 15 clubs had a higher net spend than us last season, the bunch of fucking cheats.

[Numero Veinticinco]

5 hours ago, FrenchEyeGlass said:

 

Ah yes, all the cheats. 15 clubs had a higher net spend than us last season, the bunch of fucking cheats.

Yeah, clubs are built off a season’s spending. Good stuff as usual. 

[Jairzinho]

Seven or eight clubs (depending on what you read) have spent more than us (net on transfers) over the last five. 

 

It shouldn't be particularly contentious to suggest they haven't put their hands in their pockets, relative to the position the manager has got the club in. 

[Scott_M]

12 hours ago, lifetime fan said:

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. 

I don’t know why I’m bothering, but…

 

If some posters didn’t blame FSG for everything under the sun, twist posts / opinions, discredit all sources that don’t agree with them and continuously post the same boring conspiracy theories / opinions as some sort of indisputable fact, then there wouldn’t be a need for defending FSG.

 

Where FSG have genuinely dropped a bollock (ie ticket prices) I don’t think anybody has defended them. 
 

I don’t think anybody has said we shouldn’t invest in the side more. Some of us attempt to appreciate or understand why we don’t at times we haven’t done, which is different to defending FSG - even though we might not agree with it, it’s taking on a different point of view. 
 

I shouldn’t get dragged in to it all, I do genuinely enjoy the forum and LFC talk, I get so frustrated seeing the same people, making the same (often made up) points over and over. 
 

I’m as disappointed as the next supporter at this season. I’ve posted multiple times how frustrated I am. We’ve not seemed up for it from the first game. 

I do think we should be allowed to bring in a top level midfielder this month. Although I wouldn’t want us teetering on the edge of FFP (although likely nobody would care…) if we have so much room to manoeuvre, even if it means paying over the odds I think we should do it as I feel the season will be a write off without it.
 

I also appreciate though that if we’re all in on Bellingham (which it seems to be we are), we can’t get him now and we believe he’ll be as transformative as Alisson & VVD, then I can see why we’re waiting. Same applies to Konate in 2021.

Whether just Bellingham is enough is a debate for another day. 
 

The club have been clear it’s first choice or nothing. We could blame FSG for not allowing us to spend more but potentially have more flops or we could blame Klopp for being stubborn. Who knows. Whether we agree with this position or not, that’s the way it is so there isn’t any point in complaining.

On the current playing squad, it absolutely needs a refresh. I’ve said this for a couple of summers. We have slowly been getting there. I know injuries haven’t helped, whether we sign a new midfielder or not, the entire first team squad (coaches, players, treatment etc) should be doing better than they currently are. 

[JagSquared]

https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/football/2023/01/26/liverpool-crowned-champions-of-english-footballs-sustainability-league/?outputType=amp

 

We’ve conquered all of sustainability,
We’re never gonna stop
From paper cups to insulation 
We’ve won the fucking lot

[VladimirIlyich]

The reported stuff with the incomings and outgoings of the medical staff concern me quite a bit,if true of course. This can cause off field problems that lead to on field problems too. Things just seem not to be as unified as they once were.

[Scott_M]

6 minutes ago, JagSquared said:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/football/2023/01/26/liverpool-crowned-champions-of-english-footballs-sustainability-league/?outputType=amp

 

We’ve conquered all of sustainability,
We’re never gonna stop
From paper cups to insulation 
We’ve won the fucking lot

 

[Barrington Womble]

19 hours ago, Scott_M said:

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. 

i started typing this yesterday and work, then beer got in the way.

 

no i don't mean they need it to pass an ownership test. i mean if they do not have the liquidity to buy their NFL franchise or start their NBA one (I think i read both are $4bn+), they may well borrow in order to get themselves going or borrow part. It seems both of those projects are open ended in terms of time lines (NFL because apparently currently they won't allow an FSG type ownership group and NBA because they've not confirmed dates on expanding the league), so until they know they have the liquidity (selling LFC probably), then they're going to keep their borrowing to a minimum in order to be able to get the money they require at a decent rate if one of those opportunities drops on them. 

[lifetime fan]

1 hour ago, Scott_M said:

I don’t know why I’m bothering…

Me either. 

[Barrington Womble]

16 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

 

considering the money they have spent on transfers over the last few years (over 500m net in the last 5 years), i don't think it is servicing debt is the reason they could only get weghorst (and we're not servicing their level of debt and could only get fucking arthur!). it's part of the story, but the reality is they've spent loads of money, spent astronomical amounts on the likes of ronaldo and paid out loads of dividends. 

[Moo]

1 hour ago, Scott_M said:

I don’t know why I’m bothering, but…

 

If some posters didn’t blame FSG for everything under the sun, twist posts / opinions, discredit all sources that don’t agree with them and continuously post the same boring conspiracy theories / opinions as some sort of indisputable fact, then there wouldn’t be a need for defending FSG.

 

 

I don't think this forum is what you describe, just like this is not the "FSG Out" thread.

But even if it was, why is there a need to defend them? Why do you care?

[Scott_M]

17 minutes ago, Moo said:

 

I don't think this forum is what you describe, just like this is not the "FSG Out" thread.

But even if it was, why is there a need to defend them? Why do you care?

I didn’t say the forum, I said some posters. 
 

I like the forum. I don’t like constant bull shit being spread. 
 

I think we all broadly agree on FSG’s shortcomings, just some of us react to it massively differently.

[Scott_M]

25 minutes ago, lifetime fan said:

Me either. 

 

As perfectly well balance response to your insults, I didn’t really expect you to read it. 

[lifetime fan]

40 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

 

As perfectly well balance response to your insults, I didn’t really expect you to read it. 

I read the first paragraph of bullshit and then gave up. 

[Scott_M]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

i started typing this yesterday and work, then beer got in the way.

 

no i don't mean they need it to pass an ownership test. i mean if they do not have the liquidity to buy their NFL franchise or start their NBA one (I think i read both are $4bn+), they may well borrow in order to get themselves going or borrow part. It seems both of those projects are open ended in terms of time lines (NFL because apparently currently they won't allow an FSG type ownership group and NBA because they've not confirmed dates on expanding the league), so until they know they have the liquidity (selling LFC probably), then they're going to keep their borrowing to a minimum in order to be able to get the money they require at a decent rate if one of those opportunities drops on them. 

A quick google tells me that the average NBA team is worth £1.5bn and the average NFL team is worth £3.5bn. 
 

Some are worth more than others. Golden State Warriors and Dallas Cowboys are worth c.£8bn.

 

Were they linked with Washington Commodores? They are listed at £5bn. 
 

You might be right. I feel that £80m-£130m is fairy inconsequential compared to the above figures. 

[Barrington Womble]

30 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

A quick google tells me that the average NBA team is worth £1.5bn and the average NFL team is worth £3.5bn. 
 

Some are worth more than others. Golden State Warriors and Dallas Cowboys are worth c.£8bn.

 

Were they linked with Washington Commodores? They are listed at £5bn. 
 

You might be right. I feel that £80m-£130m is fairy inconsequential compared to the above figures. 

I dunno who they were linked with in the NFL, but the 5bn you mention sounds about right. 

 

The NBA franchise they're setting up I don't think they're buying an existing one, but getting permission to start a new one in vegas. I've seen 4bn mentioned a few times, but there's also been reference to it because the phoenix suns were selling for 4bn which supposedly the Vegas team would cost the same. I don't quite know how it works in that sport, maybe the league starts the franchise and then sells it? 

 

The Suns sale of $4bn will set the benchmark for what an NBA team is worth, and will send a message to FSG over the price they'll have to fork over to the NBA for the possible Vegas team.

 

https://www-express-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.express.co.uk/sport/nba/1712014/Phoenix-Suns-sale-could-have-impact-on-Liverpool-and-future-transfers/amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_ct=1674822253478&amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=16748222275617&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.express.co.uk%2Fsport%2Fnba%2F1712014%2FPhoenix-Suns-sale-could-have-impact-on-Liverpool-and-future-transfers

[FrenchEyeGlass]

5 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yeah, clubs are built off a season’s spending. Good stuff as usual. 

In the last five years arsenal (amongst about 6 other teams) have had a higher net spend than us.
 

They’ve just bid for Caicedo. 
 

Are they cheats? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, FrenchEyeGlass said:

In the last five years arsenal (amongst about 6 other teams) have had a higher net spend than us.
 

They’ve just bid for Caicedo. 
 

Are they cheats? 

Sure

[dockers_strike]

4 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

 

considering the money they have spent on transfers over the last few years (over 500m net in the last 5 years), i don't think it is servicing debt is the reason they could only get weghorst (and we're not servicing their level of debt and could only get fucking arthur!). it's part of the story, but the reality is they've spent loads of money, spent astronomical amounts on the likes of ronaldo and paid out loads of dividends. 

 

Yes, the bit about Weghorst was just a dig really. But the point I was trying to make and didnt, was \ is, if united didnt have to service Glazers debt, they're probably the only PL club that could virtually match city's (and newcastle if they are allowed to go down that route) spending within the laughably lax PL FFP.

[Barrington Womble]

34 minutes ago, dockers_strike said:

 

Yes, the bit about Weghorst was just a dig really. But the point I was trying to make and didnt, was \ is, if united didnt have to service Glazers debt, they're probably the only PL club that could virtually match city's (and newcastle if they are allowed to go down that route) spending within the laughably lax PL FFP.

I guess my point is despite debt they're out spending everyone. 

[Captain Howdy]

Arsenal and Chelsea showing proper ambition while we sit on our decrepit midfield pretending we’re going after Bellingham in the summer and knowing full well we don’t stand a cat in hells chance of landing him. The sooner these go can’t come a day too soon.

[Captain Howdy]

If not for winning the lottery with Klopp their tenure would have been an unmitigated disaster

[an tha]

1 hour ago, dockers_strike said:

 

Yes, the bit about Weghorst was just a dig really. But the point I was trying to make and didnt, was \ is, if united didnt have to service Glazers debt, they're probably the only PL club that could virtually match city's (and newcastle if they are allowed to go down that route) spending within the laughably lax PL FFP.

Yet their revenues are now lower than ours.

 

I appreciate they may have started with higher cash reserves but surely that isn't lasting indefinitely.

 

I am no football finance expert and of course our model has demonstrably outperformed theirs in recent years - the trophy count tells us that....no argument.

 

But now we need to spend to refresh/rebuild surely the money is there and surely we should not be outgunned by the mancs or anyone really bar the cheats.

[Harry Squatter]

 

 

 

These cunts seriously need to fuck off. Now using Covid as an excuse for lack of spending. Yet when Redbird were investing money into FSG there were tons of articles saying that the investment would cover any losses made from Covid. 

 

Also confirms that Liverpool rely on sales to generate money. 

 

James Pearce should be embarrassed writing utter shit like this but he's on FSGs payroll so isn't arsed.