Jump to content
Neil G

Go fuck yourselves FSG

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, m0e said:

Yes, and YOU have no idea what's in his contract.

 

We don't have release clauses in any of our contracts, or at least that's what we're led to believe.

 

I'll ask again:

 

1 -Where is the proof that we have a "Chelsea lite system", whatever the fuck that means?

 

And

 

2 - Where did Shaq say he was sold because his request?

 

I'll add a third:

 

If the players Klopp wants rid of - players he bought - don't want to leave, what would you like to happen then?

1. Chelsea lite? Load of junior players who either come through your academy or you buy before they qualify to be part of ffp and you later sell them for a decent fee after years and years of loans when you've never had any intention of using the player. 

 

2. On international duty in the summer. He said something like "I've spoken to the Liverpool board and I will leave this summer, last season they asked me to stay because they needed me". 

 

3. Klopp doesn't push anyone out imo. I don't think it matters if he bought them or inherited them. As long as they work hard and act a proper professional, he keeps them. He was keeping karius till the players complained about his photo shoot in the summer after Kiev. If he doesn't really want them, but they turn up in training, they get to be the next sturridge/lallana. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

1. Chelsea lite? Load of junior players who either come through your academy or you buy before they qualify to be part of ffp and you later sell them for a decent fee after years and years of loans when you've never had any intention of using the player. 

 

2. On international duty in the summer. He said something like "I've spoken to the Liverpool board and I will leave this summer, last season they asked me to stay because they needed me". 

 

3. Klopp doesn't push anyone out imo. I don't think it matters if he bought them or inherited them. As long as they work hard and act a proper professional, he keeps them. He was keeping karius till the players complained about his photo shoot in the summer after Kiev. If he doesn't really want them, but they turn up in training, they get to be the next sturridge/lallana. 

1. We haven't done that since Rafa left. We may have sold players who haven't made it or won't make it here, but that's nothing new. 

 

2. That's not quite the evidence I was looking for, but it's a moot point anyway.

 

3. Exactly. Its got as much to do with what they offer in training as what they do on the pitch. It's not as simple as "get someone who offers more than Origi".

 

I don't see how anything here is anything to moan about.

Share this post


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

1. Chelsea lite? Load of junior players who either come through your academy or you buy before they qualify to be part of ffp and you later sell them for a decent fee after years and years of loans when you've never had any intention of using the player. 

 

2. On international duty in the summer. He said something like "I've spoken to the Liverpool board and I will leave this summer, last season they asked me to stay because they needed me". 

 

3. Klopp doesn't push anyone out imo. I don't think it matters if he bought them or inherited them. As long as they work hard and act a proper professional, he keeps them. He was keeping karius till the players complained about his photo shoot in the summer after Kiev. If he doesn't really want them, but they turn up in training, they get to be the next sturridge/lallana. 

I found the Shaq quotes, so fair dues. I must have missed them in the summer.

 
“The important thing at this moment in my career is to be able to play regularly, but that hasn’t always been the case in the last three seasons,” Shaqiri explained.
 
“This is why I told Liverpool that I feel ready for a new challenge. They accepted my wish and will seriously consider the offers that will come. They will not stop me.
 
“I’m only 29 years old, I have played in some of the best Leagues in Europe and I would like to continue being a part of them.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, m0e said:

I found the Shaq quotes, so fair dues. I must have missed them in the summer.

 
“The important thing at this moment in my career is to be able to play regularly, but that hasn’t always been the case in the last three seasons,” Shaqiri explained.
 
“This is why I told Liverpool that I feel ready for a new challenge. They accepted my wish and will seriously consider the offers that will come. They will not stop me.
 
“I’m only 29 years old, I have played in some of the best Leagues in Europe and I would like to continue being a part of them....but I will take France instead.'
 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moe at the next ridiculous response, which is probably a million miles from where the discussion started…

 

764187CE-F0D3-4E98-81B3-BB58FB1C9FEF.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always rely on a tweet from the Swiss Ramble when the fan base is up in arms over our transfer business. 

 

We are totally sell to buy at this point as he confirms in one of his tweets.

 

We are also the definition of unsustainable from a footballing standpoint. Long term we can't continue to challenge on this model, eventually we will have no assets to sell. Its only sustainable from the point of view it keeps Fenways profit margin in tact. Thats the only thing thats sustainable.

 

It will be grim when Jurgens gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Red74 said:

2E39C72E-DB55-4F46-91D7-E2A78B0FD026.jpeg

7D84583B-E96F-4658-9E7B-977F95ABB4D8.jpeg

1BEDF15B-B3AC-49E5-9BB6-8F6D1F9ECCFA.gif

What’s the second list from? The first is the accounts so I’m more likely to believe them. I really don’t believe the chelsea and city ones though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always stuns me how people will find the shittiest sources to try and justify a view point despite everyone telling them it's the opposite. Man City's published accounts has there wage bill at 351 million, and we know that because of the way city group is set up a lot of the staff costs are centralised and charged as consultancy fee's to Man City that don't go into the wage total so the 351 million is likely to be higher if it was accounted for in it's entirety by City. But sure because a random website says otherwise...

 

Michael Gove might have been right you know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

An often used but also often highly appropriate meme…

 

E7F4B581-ECE6-4FC7-A5CE-85130B1CF093.gif

Tell yer what scott. FSG missed a trick giving virgil that pay rise when they already had a better defender in you xoxo

Share this post


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

An often used but also often highly appropriate meme…

 

E7F4B581-ECE6-4FC7-A5CE-85130B1CF093.gif

You're a knob head. 

 

United have just signed Ronaldo, Varane and Sancho but our reported wage bill next year you can fucking guarantee will be higher. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem to be more and more likely that wages are the area of focus when we're wondering where all the money has gone and unless we ever get a better breakdown of that, then one can only wonder how much of it is going to directors including the ones who own us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSG books - good

 

City & Chelsea - bad 

21 minutes ago, JagSquared said:

What’s the second list from? The first is the accounts so I’m more likely to believe them. I really don’t believe the chelsea and city ones though.

The 2nd list is the playing squads wages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Daisy said:

You're a knob head. 

 

United have just signed Ronaldo, Varane and Sancho but our reported wage bill next year you can fucking guarantee will be higher. 

 

Yeah I’m sure Man United’s total wage bill will be more than ours, but only Ronaldo of those will be earning more than their equivalents in our team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Red74 said:

Tell yer what scott. FSG missed a trick giving virgil that pay rise when they already had a better defender in you xoxo


Very good!

 

To be fair, it’s true though. I don’t really understand all those Swiss Ramble figures but I assume they’ve backed up what has been reported for months about our accounts.

 

Then somebody pulls something, I don’t know from where, about the figures from the Swiss Ramble not matching something else they’ve read etc etc etc.

 

It’ll go round and round in circles and then those who don’t agree with Swiss Ramble will just say the accounts are fudged anyway and claim victory despite showing nothing on the contrary. 

 

Going over the smallest details of the accounts is pointless. Nobody will agree on the starting position for the figures, I’d guess nobody really understands it all and it’s just a nonsense. 
 

FWIW, I trust people with more of a background in this than me. Swiss Ramble has a decent reputation & what they’ve written seems plausible. 
 

The bigger question is, despite no anti-FSG’ers asking it, if the FSG investment has grown from a c.£300m to c.£3bn asset, why isn’t more being invested in the playing staff? Given they’ve making c.£2.7bn profit, there is no reason why they couldn’t loosen their wallets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Daisy said:

You're a knob head. 

 

United have just signed Ronaldo, Varane and Sancho but our reported wage bill next year you can fucking guarantee will be higher. 

 


I don’t give 2 shits about the mancs wage bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Moo said:

It does seem to be more and more likely that wages are the area of focus when we're wondering where all the money has gone and unless we ever get a better breakdown of that, then one can only wonder how much of it is going to directors including the ones who own us.

Directors costs are accounted for in the filed accounts and come in at 2.1m with the highest paid director on 1.3 million.

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

×