Quantcast
Go fuck yourselves FSG - Page 331 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Neil G

Go fuck yourselves FSG

Recommended Posts

Bob Lord was calling for the removal of unpaid Directors in the 60s. And the fact that they were unpaid highlights the fact that they were already rich. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad there has finally been a recognition that English clubs were not solely ran for profit for the majority of their existence. It's a start from the misinformed posts on the last page. 

 

If you want to stop Manchester City and future sovereign states and what happened this week. There needs to be a change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really want or expect FSG to sell up.

I just want them to do better, at least attempt to make the illusion that they aren't a gang of cunts. Surely it's not that difficult to just put a bit of extra thought into things, or hire some kind of advisor that will steer them away from making these mistakes, or at the least get them to wrap everything in a way that's more palatable for the fans. 

 

I also don't want or expect them to suddenly start spending their own cash on players, but I'm sick of us being sell to buy. I want them to invest the profits that the club are making on the pitch, we're getting bigger and bigger sponsorship deals, TV deals, and over a hundred million a year extra from having good runs in the champions league, why isn't that money being spent? 

 

They're cunts, but I think instead of some wanting to hound them out the club, or some thinking there great and we should suck them off for getting us out of debt and winning a few trophies, can't we just be indifferent to the people and still hold them to account for their mistakes and push them to be better next time?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the establishment of the PL was a bit like Brexit.In part to remove rules that restricted owners making more money without having to worry about pesky things like employees being protected and profits being restricted by their wellbeing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

I'm glad there has finally been a recognition that English clubs were not solely ran for profit for the majority of their existence. It's a start from the misinformed posts on the last page. 

 

If you want to stop Manchester City and future sovereign states and what happened this week. There needs to be a change. 

What were they ran for then? Because I can't remember a time they were ran for altruistic reasons? To be honest, I don't know what point you are trying to make? 

 

Are you wistfully wishing we were back in the 19th Century? 

 

As far as I have been following football, individuals (wealthy individuals) ran football clubs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know supporters feel helpless but your situation is still markedly better than the state of things here in North America. We've long since become accustomed to franchise owners making wholesale changes whenever they want regardless of fan outrage. Teams are moved from city to city most often to cash in on a free stadium or tax subsidies from the new hosts, whilst other cities are blackmailed to offer the same to keep their beloved "insert name".

 

Sometimes fan interest align with the players union or the owners and we get a bit of an ally in our corner but that's rare, usually its millionaires fighting with billionaires with the fans left to pay for it all in the end. Politicians sometimes take up the fight but more often than not they are complicit in the fleecing. 

 

It should be noted that this is not only an issue in the so-called "major leagues". The city I live in has a team in the Quebec Major-Junior hockey league, comprised mostly of high school aged boys who are heading for the pro's (the other route is the NCAA). The team is owned by the family who owns Irving Oil, the largest local corporate conglomerate. Aside from generally telling the government what to do the team's owner recently played a huge role in pressuring the city and province to build a new arena for his team (sold to the public as a convention centre). All just to keep this team of teenagers from moving to some other community that would have been more than happy to spread their legs for the chance. 

 

There is no doubt in my mind had FSG got their way with the ESL that it would have led some day to them threatening to move the team. Yet you all stopped the ESL in its tracks, which simply would have been impossible in North America if owners wanted something similar or worse. 

 

You can't get the money out of the game but you do have immense influence to curb the worst instincts of the billionaires. Supporter's groups from across Europe should form a select commission to study ways to make real practical changes to the governance of the sport that don't rely on the usual suspects from government, UEFA, and FIFA, who are all inevitably in a conflict of interest, and easily corrupted. 

 

You can't get rid of the billionaires but this is a great time to seize the initiative on reform to strengthen your position. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jockey said:

What were they ran for then? Because I can't remember a time they were ran for altruistic reasons? To be honest, I don't know what point you are trying to make? 

 

Are you wistfully wishing we were back in the 19th Century? 

 

As far as I have been following football, individuals (wealthy individuals) ran football clubs. 

 

Point 1. Rule 34 existed for the majority of Liverpool's existence. 

 

Point 2. This created an environment where owners were more custodians than oligarchs, sovereign states and speculators. 

 

Point 3 . Under the current system owners will and are obligated to make as much money as possible for their investor's.

 

Point 4. This will always clash with the demands of the supporter unless there is intervention. 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

 

Point 1. Rule 34 existed for the majority of Liverpool's existence. 

 

Point 2. This created an environment where owners were more custodians than oligarchs, sovereign states and speculators. 

 

Point 3 . Under the current system owners will and are obligated to make as much money as possible.

 

Point 4. This will always clash with the demands of the supporter unless there is intervention. 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree, because it feels that you are ignoring a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. The fact it all changes in the 80s should give you an idea of why it changed - the world changes in the 80s, it all started in the 70s. The old order was wiped away by the likes of David Sterling, Jimmy Goldsmith et al. But I can't recall a time when clubs - all clubs ownership was with wealthy individuals - the fact that they were not billionaires is not proof of them being custodians - it is proof that the times were different. 

 

The Moores family had a tangible influence on both Everton and Liverpool! How can you say they were 'custodians' in the keeping with the criteria in place in 1899. The financial and economic climate created the environment where they were more custodians - TV and international TV rights were not in place then, so you are comparing apples and pears. For goodness sake we were the first club to have sponsors in the early 80s. The argument that the laws stopped change is disingenuous - the global economy changed football as it has done with everything else! I can remember Souness being interviewed on TV early in the 90s as Liverpool manager and he said we would never charge £20 a game like the Italians and therefore they were always going to be the richer league! 

 

We were owned by the Moores. All that has changed is that now we are owned by FSG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jockey said:

I'm just running an idea up the flagpole here - but I would suggest that in 1899 they knew the square root of fuck all about business and how football could be run as a business. If your term of reference is over a 100 years old, then it has long passed into irrelevance. This may be a bit of an urban myth, but wasn't football and the development of football so that the feckless and the poor didn't spend all day Saturday getting pissed? 

 

The simple fact is that since we have all been watching football - teams have been run by individuals. The only difference is that in the 70s you could win the league with a chairman who owned a used car showroom and a few social clubs, now you can't. 

I think it could be argued that those fellas in 1899 knew exactly what the fuck they were talking about and foresaw the problems that would come to the game if it was managed by any other business. You think these cunts now are cutthroat businessmen? They were living in an era where business ruled everything. Slavery had ended less than 100 years before. We were still pillaging the entire empire in the interests of business. If those rules had not been bypassed in the 80s, the entire greed is good culture in British football that has been built from the greed is good decade, may not have happened. 

 

Like everything it becomes tough to go back, but it's not impossible. We just need legislatures who actually give a fuck - either within the game or in government. But I suspect now the Tories have had their good publicity out of this, football will become a thing for the plebs again. And as for the people who run the game, they're every bit as greedy and corrupt as those running ours and the other 11 football clubs of the ESL. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jockey said:

 

 

We were owned by the Moores. All that has changed is that now we are owned by FSG. 

 

FSG and Moore's owning us is the not the same. One bought us solely as an investment whose loyalties are legally to it's investors. As they say agree to disagree.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I think it could be argued that those fellas in 1899 knew exactly what the fuck they were talking about and foresaw the problems that would come to the game if it was managed by any other business. You think these cunts now are cutthroat businessmen? They were living in an era where business ruled everything. Slavery had ended less than 100 years before. We were still pillaging the entire empire in the interests of business. If those rules had not been bypassed in the 80s, the entire greed is good culture in British football that has been built from the greed is good decade, may not have happened. 

 

Like everything it becomes tough to go back, but it's not impossible. We just need legislatures who actually give a fuck - either within the game or in government. But I suspect now the Tories have had their good publicity out of this, football will become a thing for the plebs again. And as for the people who run the game, they're every bit as greedy and corrupt as those running ours and the other 11 football clubs of the ESL. 

 

 

Sorry mate, totally disagree. Those rules were not put in place because for the good of the 'plebs' nothing in those days ever was, we may have left Slavery behind a hundred years earlier but we sent millions to their deaths 15 years later. The whole history of football until then was one of subservience - it wasn't run by ordinary people, it was run by people of class and wealth for the benefit of the ordinary people. It is telling that nobody in the FA accepted the right of the players to form a Union for example, and that a maximum wages was in place up until the 60s! 

 

I think we all agree that we need a change in the ownership style - but, that is also a change in culture. And if your response to the current problems is to look to plans and rules over a 100 years ago, then I think you are going to fail. I think the one difference is that you didn't get rich out of football - which is a completely different point to saying that rich men didn't run football clubs. Bus drivers and bin men didn't take over clubs - local businessmen did. You can't look back - because you can't remove TV from the equation, you can't remove sponsorship and marketing from the equation, and you can't remove globalisation from the equation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Denny Crane said:

 

FSG and Moore's owning us is the not the same. One bought us solely as an investment whose loyalties are legally to it's investors. As they say agree to disagree.

 

 

That is fair enough. Although you have to agree, it is ironic that it was a Moores who made over £100m from selling us! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jockey said:

Sorry mate, totally disagree. Those rules were not put in place because for the good of the 'plebs' nothing in those days ever was, we may have left Slavery behind a hundred years earlier but we sent millions to their deaths 15 years later. The whole history of football until then was one of subservience - it wasn't run by ordinary people, it was run by people of class and wealth for the benefit of the ordinary people. It is telling that nobody in the FA accepted the right of the players to form a Union for example, and that a maximum wages was in place up until the 60s! 

 

I think we all agree that we need a change in the ownership style - but, that is also a change in culture. And if your response to the current problems is to look to plans and rules over a 100 years ago, then I think you are going to fail. I think the one difference is that you didn't get rich out of football - which is a completely different point to saying that rich men didn't run football clubs. Bus drivers and bin men didn't take over clubs - local businessmen did. You can't look back - because you can't remove TV from the equation, you can't remove sponsorship and marketing from the equation, and you can't remove globalisation from the equation. 

I don't dispute the game used to be run from a different class, but club ownership was never about making money. It might have been about good standing in the community. It might have been to help their none football business. Sometimes it was just the love of the game and their community. Most clubs in the top 2 divisions have moved away from that ownership model now, but it doesn't mean it was wrong or much of the pyramid is still run that way. For fucks sake, even Burnley are owned by American PE investors now. 

 

For me, put simply, if our football clubs are no more than vehicles for profit for the global wealthy, well the game will just continue down this path were on now, it will continue to get worse and not better. You're right, you can't roll back TV and sponsorship, but where does that say a.small group of clubs should get to keep it all and lock the door on change now? Without the smaller clubs, there's no competition. What if someone had started this superleague in 1970, we'd be nowhere near it? What if 1980? Nottingham forest would have been in. 1990? Well English clubs were not wanted anywhere near the continent and the supposed great Barcelona still had as many European cups as Everton and Accrington Stanley.  2000? We'd barely made a mark since heysel, they wouldn't have wanted us, yet European royalty Ajax had been to 2 finals in the previous decade and would have been in there, yet we lock them out now? It's completely stupid to think the game has to be about money only. With the right will, it can become a sport again. But while people shrug their shoulders and go "oh well, what about the sponsors" then we're fucked. 

 

I don't believe the game will turn around, because there's too much greed at every level. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't want it to. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I don't dispute the game used to be run from a different class, but club ownership was never about making money. It might have been about good standing in the community. It might have been to help their none football business. Sometimes it was just the love of the game and their community. Most clubs in the top 2 divisions have moved away from that ownership model now, but it doesn't mean it was wrong or much of the pyramid is still run that way. For fucks sake, even Burnley are owned by American PE investors now. 

 

For me, put simply, if our football clubs are no more than vehicles for profit for the global wealthy, well the game will just continue down this path were on now, it will continue to get worse and not better. You're right, you can't roll back TV and sponsorship, but where does that say a.small group of clubs should get to keep it all and lock the door on change now? Without the smaller clubs, there's no competition. What if someone had started this superleague in 1970, we'd be nowhere near it? What if 1980? Nottingham forest would have been in. 1990? Well English clubs were not wanted anywhere near the continent and the supposed great Barcelona still had as many European cups as Everton and Accrington Stanley.  2000? We'd barely made a mark since heysel, they wouldn't have wanted us, yet European royalty Ajax had been to 2 finals in the previous decade and would have been in there, yet we lock them out now? It's completely stupid to think the game has to be about money only. With the right will, it can become a sport again. But while people shrug their shoulders and go "oh well, what about the sponsors" then we're fucked. 

 

I don't believe the game will turn around, because there's too much greed at every level. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't want it to. 

I think you are right about owners and the changing nature of ownership, but that is the nature of ownership now! As I said - that all started in the 70s with Sterling and Goldsmith, taking over family run business - sacking the families and ransacking the different parts. That culture is so dominant it has to affect sport (not just football) - but I do understand what you are saying, and agree with the need to see football clubs as more than just an investment opportunity - although there is nothing wrong with that in itself - it is how it manifests that is the problem. The day to day running of the club - FSG have been good. The value of the club (and their investment) has probably increased 10 fold, but the nature of capitalism is they always want more - and that is where we run into problems. However the irony is that we are having a discussion about billionaires getting rich and using football to get wealthy - and yet the main problem is two clubs who use football for PR. Getting rich is not the agenda of City and Chelsea. 

 

I am not sure about the Nottingham Forrest argument if I am honest. They were not poor - they bought 2 or 3 players for £1m and until 1987 it was more than what we had spent on individuals. Preston and Huddersfield have never been anything since I have been alive - but, they were the dominant teams at one stage. Football changes - and to paraphrase Sickboy - once upon a time you have it, and then you don't. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jockey said:

I think you are right about owners and the changing nature of ownership, but that is the nature of ownership now! As I said - that all started in the 70s with Sterling and Goldsmith, taking over family run business - sacking the families and ransacking the different parts. That culture is so dominant it has to affect sport (not just football) - but I do understand what you are saying, and agree with the need to see football clubs as more than just an investment opportunity - although there is nothing wrong with that in itself - it is how it manifests that is the problem. The day to day running of the club - FSG have been good. The value of the club (and their investment) has probably increased 10 fold, but the nature of capitalism is they always want more - and that is where we run into problems. However the irony is that we are having a discussion about billionaires getting rich and using football to get wealthy - and yet the main problem is two clubs who use football for PR. Getting rich is not the agenda of City and Chelsea. 

 

I am not sure about the Nottingham Forrest argument if I am honest. They were not poor - they bought 2 or 3 players for £1m and until 1987 it was more than what we had spent on individuals. Preston and Huddersfield have never been anything since I have been alive - but, they were the dominant teams at one stage. Football changes - and to paraphrase Sickboy - once upon a time you have it, and then you don't. 

 

 

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of our owners, I think they're a bunch of cunts and the only reason they measure anywhere but a bunch of cunts, is measured against some of the other leaches who own big clubs. So could they be worse? Sure. But that's like saying aids is better than cancer. They're great at making themselves richer, but frankly if that was all I cared about, I'd be looking to support Jeff Bezos FC 

 

Forest were 2 time European champions. Of course they'd have been in a 1980 version of the superlesgue, FFS this one invited Spurs, Arsenal and RBL! 

 

All your last paragraph does is prove my point. No team shoild get to be locked into a competion forever just because their teams alright today or they've got owners other owners think they'll get on with and share greed is good principles. Part of the beauty of the game is its evolving nature. We should never try to take that away. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

We'll have to agree to disagree about the quality of our owners, I think they're a bunch of cunts and the only reason they measure anywhere but a bunch of cunts, is measured against some of the other leaches who own big clubs. So could they be worse? Sure. But that's like saying aids is better than cancer. They're great at making themselves richer, but frankly if that was all I cared about, I'd be looking to support Jeff Bezos FC 

 

Forest were 2 time European champions. Of course they'd have been in a 1980 version of the superlesgue, FFS this one invited Spurs, Arsenal and RBL! 

 

All your last paragraph does is prove my point. No team shoild get to be locked into a competion forever just because their teams alright today or they've got owners other owners think they'll get on with and share greed is good principles. Part of the beauty of the game is its evolving nature. We should never try to take that away. 

 

 

 

 

Haha - fair point on the Spurs and Arsenal point! 

 

I think we agree on a lot, just not the best way to fix it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question for all -

 

If it wasn’t a closed shop element, would you have been in favour of the ESL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Honest question for all -

 

If it wasn’t a closed shop element, would you have been in favour of the ESL?

No.

 

I think the CL has gone too far and the new expansion is going further still.

 

I still romanticise the European cup and think it lost a lot of its pull when you could play a team from your own country 4 times during the competition, as an extreme example. Playing Barcelona bis great because it doesn't happen every 2 weeks, maybe every 2 years if lucky. 

 

Having 6 teams from your own country and playing each other so often would completely negate the point of big European nights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Scott_M said:

Honest question for all -

 

If it wasn’t a closed shop element, would you have been in favour of the ESL?


The two groups of 10 is certainly a better format than one ‘league’ of 36 teams in which you only play against 10 of the teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Turdseye said:


The two groups of 10 is certainly a better format than one ‘league’ of 36 teams in which you only play against 10 of the teams. 

Why do we need to play more games though? We shouldn't be embarking on any madcap scheme without a review of the entire fixture calendar. And with that I mean domestic cups and leagues, European and FIFA with whatever fucked up WCC plans they've got around the corner. And then internationals. Players need guaranteed rest. It shouldn't be at the expense of the clubs. Stupid shit like the Olympics needs to be sorted - it's U23s or it isn't. Personally I wouldn't allow any players to take part, football is just a distraction to the Olympics and is another way to damage key players. 

 

We need to find ways to to level the playing field or at least close the gaps. Creating the CL as it is has made a situation you have to be in it or you're fucked. If it was a smaller league of just champions, the EL or whatever replaced it could be a great competition again. The same is true of the PL. That idea you fail for 1 season, fall off a cliff and your club collapses, is just fucking mad. It's fine teams can go down, but it shouldn't be to eternal detriment like it is now. 

 

Instead of randoms running around doing their own thing and in their own interests, there needs to be a more considered approach. And cunts like angelli who one the one hand is representing 250 clubs across Europe while embarking on a project like this? It's just incredible. 

 

Football is rotten - it's not just the top of the game here, just look at all the FIFA stuff from a few years ago. There corruption and dishonesty  everywhere. In a time it is so easy to track finances electronically, we should be thinking about a new governance process that ensures there is clarity around football finances and activities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scooby Dudek said:

No.

 

I think the CL has gone too far and the new expansion is going further still.

 

I still romanticise the European cup and think it lost a lot of its pull when you could play a team from your own country 4 times during the competition, as an extreme example. Playing Barcelona bis great because it doesn't happen every 2 weeks, maybe every 2 years if lucky. 

 

Having 6 teams from your own country and playing each other so often would completely negate the point of big European nights.

 

1 hour ago, Captain Turdseye said:


The two groups of 10 is certainly a better format than one ‘league’ of 36 teams in which you only play against 10 of the teams. 


I take both points.

 

Is our relationship with the CL greater than it was with the Football League trophy before 1992?

 

If we’re playing Barca, Real, Milan etc every season, then the excitement of playing them like we currently infrequently do, will certainly reduce.

 

I think the proposal for the ESL was massively flawed and I don’t think the format of the new CL is much better. I didn’t and don't necessarily have an issue with leaving the UEFA umbrella. 
 

I take Barry’s point on players need rest (I won’t quote him, I’m on ignore) but if  clubs biggest expenditure each season is players wages, would a way to ensure they play less games is to accept they’ll get paid less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott_M said:

Honest question for all -

 

If it wasn’t a closed shop element, would you have been in favour of the ESL?

Besides the obvious satisfaction in seeing the UEFA grifters cut out I was intrigued by suggestions that a salary cap was being considered. Though I don't see how that could be done in any format other than a closed shop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scottthecanuck said:

Besides the obvious satisfaction in seeing the UEFA grifters cut out I was intrigued by suggestions that a salary cap was being considered. Though I don't see how that could be done in any format other than a closed shop.  

Not just a cap on salaries. Transfers too. Same budget. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Klopps' take is pretty much the same as everyone's, except UEFA, I would imagine;

 

"It's very good that the new Super League is off the table, but the new Champions League isn't great."

 

 

"Ten games rather than six and no idea where to put them in," said Klopp. "The only people who never get asked are the coaches, the players and the supporters.

"Uefa didn't ask us, the Super League didn't ask us. It's just always 'play more games'. The new Champions League, what's the reason for that? Money... I have no idea how we're supposed to deal with even more games.

"You can't have 20 teams in a league, two cup competitions, 10 international games before Christmas - these things aren't possible."

 

 

 

I had also completely forgotten about the FIFA club world cup, or whatever it is called. 

Just more and more and more games to rinse as much money as possible off people. They really care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×