Go fuck yourselves FSG

[M_B]

I tried downloading that image.

Would love to use it for a work presentation but that address no longer works!

:(

 

Right click, save image as....

[xerxes]

Tom Hicks and George Gillett are the reason we're no longer in the top 4.

 

The disaster of G&H's ownership is well documented.

 

However when they were here CL players were bought, CL wages paid and we remained in the Top Four, with them offering Rafa a long and lucrative contract to perpetuate that.

 

Our lurch into near Adminstration was certainly downn to them, but the reasons for our CL exile are many. Successive Boards have failed to grip the stadium issue, FSG have failed to finance a CL spot tilt,poor managerial appointments have been made, and KK squandered a hatful of money are just a few of those reasons.

[Ranxerox]

I don't think FSG are all that serious about the CL, its something they'd like to achieve no doubt but they won't be risking large transfer fees, high wages, or massive loans for a new stadium to get there. They're strategy is a "value" approach which may or may not get them 4th someday. Meanwhile lets all hope PL clubs start performing better in the CL as there is a real risk of England losing a CL place in which case 4th won't even be good enough.

[Code]

If ever we needed confirmation of our reality, we are getting it from Suarez.

 

When I think about it, FSG are no longer the problem.

 

It is now more fundamental - it is the fans acceptance of this initially gradual but now accelerating decline.

 

It is the fan's gullibility in buying into PR bullkshit from FSG and Rogers.

There should be revolution on the streets around anfield.

 

The longer fans accept this, the more we dishonour our history and the work of great men such as Shanks and Paisley.

 

 

Sad but true.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

At the end of the day, this summer will give us an idea of FSGs intentions. We should be seeing two big signings coming in before the window closes and if Suarez leaves, 3-4 big signings.

[Major Tom]

I don't think FSG are all that serious about the CL, its something they'd like to achieve no doubt but they won't be risking large transfer fees, high wages, or massive loans for a new stadium to get there. They're strategy is a "value" approach

 

To be fair, there's a massive amount of speculation there, Scott!

[Garrincha]

What about players who played brilliant at another club? Do we never go for them as they'll want, and deserve, big wages?

 

FSG are too afraid of another Carroll scenario.

[Randy Marsh]

At the end of the day, this summer will give us an idea of FSGs intentions. We should be seeing two big signings coming in before the window closes and if Suarez leaves, 3-4 big signings.

 

That's it in a nutshell for me. The coming weeks will define them.

[Bobby Hundreds]

At the end of the day, this summer will give us an idea of FSGs intentions. We should be seeing two big signings coming in before the window closes and if Suarez leaves, 3-4 big signings.

 

Absolutely. I also think what happens with suarez shows their intentions. if they sell to an English club they're either stupid or don't give a fuck.

[TheHowieLama]

Certainly - if there is not 7 big signings we will know their intentions. So for me Bernard would be an obvious statement.

[xerxes]

At the end of the day, this summer will give us an idea of FSGs intentions. We should be seeing two big signings coming in before the window closes and if Suarez leaves, 3-4 big signings.

 

Their intentions are fairly well established, and I anticipate no change.

 

They will continue to rationalise the wage bill, I don't expect Reina to be here at the start of the season. As for big signings, with Swansea signing a £12m player who want Euro football the new order is pretty clear. We may emulate that, but I don't expect £20m plus signings.

 

If Luis goes I would expect around half to be reinvested and the balance of wages saved.

[dennis tooth]

Posts like this are the reason I don't bother replying to most your nonsense. It clearly shows why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

Its your loss son. And its based on actual events, see Arsenal. From Overmars and Henry they have been selling to fund it, check the stadium wiki page, they nearly had to stop building it because they ran out of money so dont give me that wenger philosophy shit.

Anyway you have the right to remain ignorant.

[xerxes]

Its your loss son. And its based on actual events, see Arsenal. From Overmars and Henry they have been selling to fund it, check the stadium wiki page, they nearly had to stop building it because they ran out of money so dont give me that wenger philosophy shit.

 

I now realise that your posts should always be regarded as entertainment. "Actual events":P

 

Overmars and Henry sold to finance the stadium? Wrong.

 

The business case was, is, and continues to be, profitable and compelling for the Emirates.

 

You confuse raising cash in advance of the project , a liquidity issue, with the profitablity of the stadium.

 

But there again it does not take much to confuse you.

[dennis tooth]

Well dickhed, check the emirates stadium wiki page, becase thats what happend, Wenger has, in a timely fashion come on recently to dispute both yours and Numerong's claims that the stadium has not affected their transfer cash and confirmed that now, after a very long time Arsenal will be returning to the top table of doing deals for top money.

 

I wander what he was referring to? Oh must be me being correct again and you being wrong.

 

Once again, a new stadium will have a very detrimental impact on our transfer funds for 10 years as it just has Arsenal, just ask Arsene not numties like you two.

[vanball]

Well dickhed, check the emirates stadium wiki page, becase thats what happend, Wenger has, in a timely fashion come on recently to dispute both yours and Numerong's claims that the stadium has not affected their transfer cash and confirmed that now, after a very long time Arsenal will be returning to the top table of doing deals for top money.

 

I wander what he was referring to? Oh must be me being correct again and you being wrong.

 

Once again, a new stadium will have a very detrimental impact on our transfer funds for 10 years as it just has Arsenal, just ask Arsene not numties like you two.

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing with either side, but I would say that if Arsenal has chosen to fund their stadium in a way that restricts cash flow for transfers, then that is their business. At the end of the day, their debt for the stadium will be smaller and the costs thereon lower, than if they had not done this. Its like paying down the mortgage on your house in a more accelerated way - hurts short term but when its done you are laughing.

 

However, just because they did it that way, does not mean our owners would do it the same way. Maybe our owners would do a whip around the shareholders of FSG and raise the cash privately by debenture, or some other more long term plan, in which case the cash flow required to be repaid might be longer term, and more manageable as a result. If they see that cash flows inward are more rewarding than expected, they could allow for accelerated repayment in the terms of the deal.

 

Just saying that financing methods can be flexible to what both parties involved want to achieve.

[Neil G]

Right, I'm going to step back from that. A lot of it we're simply not going to agree on, which is fine for us to pick through when it's about Liverpool, or Kenny, or FSG, but Arsenal? I think we should knock that on our head and take this sentiment and run with it.

 

 

Agreed, I was ready to suggest the same. I was getting bored with it and it was a side issue anyway.

 

 

Look, I'm happy to have a proper discussion about the future of the club. It needs to start from a clean slate, though. Going back and forth about Arsenal isn't going to get us very far. It also needs to take into context the situation inherited by FSG, and all the other things they need to do or have needed to do in order to fulfil the objective.

 

 

Sure. I wasn't after a general discussion about the club's future particularly, I was talking about the specific issue of whether we should prioritise strengthening the squad in order to get back into and stay in the CL, or redeveloping the stadium, should we have access to money that could be spent on either of those things.

 

Obviously the ideal scenario is that we get financing for the stadium that won't impact on our ability to spend on the squad, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out that we'll be able to swing that. Even if the start of the work is only a couple of years down the line, there are a whole range of variable factors that could have a bearing on the terms we might be offered. The state of the global economy, the US economy, the UK economy, FSG's financial health, the club's financial health, Arsenal's spending, the relative quality of the two squads, whether or not we're in the CL, how far off it we are if not, any other clubs challenging for and getting into the CL, and so on.

 

It might seem a rather arcane and distant issue right now, but it will be very real and relevant if we end up there.

[Neil G]

This type of things gets said by fans of all teams every summer "the other teams will be spending big and they'll get better". But its not about spending money for money's sake (not saying you are saying that), its about spending the right money.

 

If we look at the traditional big 4, we've all spent money over the last 3 or so seasons (even Arsenal, their net spend is low because they sold 3 players for £84m, but they've spent over £100m in 2 seasons I think), and as far as I am concerned, we are all worse teams than we were in say 2009. The 2 teams that have improved are City who have spent an obscene amount of money, and Spurs, who have spent the right money (until recently, think they seem to have abandoned that now).

 

Lets say we do spend all the Suarez money, as well as all the money I beleive is available, there are 5 other very competitive teams we are up against, what happens if we don't get top 4, do we spend big again the next season? We'll probably be back to paying Champions league wages without being in the Champions League, which is something we are only just breaking free from. The top of the league is much more competitive now, and it would be sensible to keep our powder dry, especially as we will need to invest a significant amount into the refurbishment.

 

 

I completely disagree with that last sentence. I think the risk is that the longer we stay out of the CL, the bigger the gulf in quality between the top four and us will become, and the more our commercial appeal will decline. I don't think we can afford to happily sit in sixth or seventh and work patiently towards getting back into the CL.

 

If Arsenal do start spending serious money from their stadium revenue before we redevelop Anfield, and before Spurs or Everton or anyone else are able to crash the party, they could easily lock up that final CL place for the foreseeable future. They'd have a better squad than us, more income than us, CL football to bring in both the revenue and the players, and a manager who has an outstanding track record in precisely the kind of transfer policy that we aspire to.

 

If we're in that kind of situation, or worse, by the time we're ready to start work on the stadium, it's not going to be the money-spinner some people are hoping it will be. Its earning power will be restricted by the diminished appeal to sponsors, corporate parties and daytrippers of a team that's miles away from getting back to the top.

 

If we didn't have the scenario of Arsenal spending the Emirates revenue hanging over us, I'd be more inclined to be patient. But we don't know when that scenario might materialise, and it could be very soon, so I think we need to pre-empt it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Sure. I wasn't after a general discussion about the club's future particularly, I was talking about the specific issue of whether we should prioritise strengthening the squad in order to get back into and stay in the CL, or redeveloping the stadium, should we have access to money that could be spent on either of those things.

 

Obviously the ideal scenario is that we get financing for the stadium that won't impact on our ability to spend on the squad, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out that we'll be able to swing that.

 

I don't think a stadium redevelopment needs to impact on our squad spending at all. Even in the event that we don't get a chunk of it paid by sponsorships and/or naming rights partnerships.

 

In the worst case scenario, we go to the bank and borrow against future earnings (in this case, the increased revenue generated by the increased capacity and corporate hospitality). In the very worst case scenario, where we don't defer repayment, that might impact our short term spending by a couple of yearly interest payments, if FSG weren't willing to cover them. However, that's almost unthinkable. I don't think we'd bother if that was the only option open to us. Even if this did happen, the borrowing would be done in stages as to reduce the cost.

 

In a still negative, but slightly more realistic scenario, we do borrow the entire amount from the bank, but payment is deferred for the duration of the build, it won't impact our short term ability to spend but will increase our long-term ability to spend on the squad.

 

In a more balanced and optimistic scenario, and still realistic, we borrow some of the money from the bank with deferred payments, and fund the rest of the build with sponsorships or naming rights. This means we have lower debt on the club, lower repayments, and more money in the short and medium term.

 

Then there's the debt-free scenario, where we get a deal to cover the entire cost of the stadium redevelopment from renaming Anfield or from an interest free loan from FSG.

 

In any case, it won't really hinder our spending on the team. I simply can't see us spending 150m if it hinders our CL challenge. The entire point is to raise revenues. CL will far outstrip the redevelopment in money earned.

[Neil G]

I don't think a stadium redevelopment needs to impact on our squad spending at all. Even in the event that we don't get a chunk of it paid by sponsorships and/or naming rights partnerships.

 

In the worst case scenario, we go to the bank and borrow against future earnings (in this case, the increased revenue generated by the increased capacity and corporate hospitality). In the very worst case scenario, where we don't defer repayment, that might impact our short term spending by a couple of yearly interest payments, if FSG weren't willing to cover them. However, that's almost unthinkable. I don't think we'd bother if that was the only option open to us. Even if this did happen, the borrowing would be done in stages as to reduce the cost.

 

In a still negative, but slightly more realistic scenario, we do borrow the entire amount from the bank, but payment is deferred for the duration of the build, it won't impact our short term ability to spend but will increase our long-term ability to spend on the squad.

 

In a more balanced and optimistic scenario, and still realistic, we borrow some of the money from the bank with deferred payments, and fund the rest of the build with sponsorships or naming rights. This means we have lower debt on the club, lower repayments, and more money in the short and medium term.

 

Then there's the debt-free scenario, where we get a deal to cover the entire cost of the stadium redevelopment from renaming Anfield or from an interest free loan from FSG.

 

In any case, it won't really hinder our spending on the team. I simply can't see us spending 150m if it hinders our CL challenge. The entire point is to raise revenues. CL will far outstrip the redevelopment in money earned.

 

 

And this is the option that we shouldn't countenance if we're not in the CL, especially if Arsenal have started spending serious money.

 

I'm not as confident as you are that FSG would dismiss it as an option. They might think that a couple of years of sell to buy would be a price worth paying to get the work done and start bringing in the additional revenue. I'd need to see several more seasons of continuous healthy net investment in the squad before I'd rule it out, starting in the next six weeks.

 

Hopefully we'll be re-established in the CL by then and it'll be less of an issue.

[zigackly]

Are you all still in here having this same argument?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

And this is the option that we shouldn't countenance if we're not in the CL, especially if Arsenal have started spending serious money.

 

I'm not as confident as you are that FSG would dismiss it as an option. They might think that a couple of years of sell to buy would be a price worth paying to get the work done and start bringing in the additional revenue. I'd need to see several more seasons of continuous healthy net investment in the squad before I'd rule it out, starting in the next six weeks.

 

Hopefully we'll be re-established in the CL by then and it'll be less of an issue.

 

Yeah, but you're inherently negative about FSG. I think it's unlikely as an option because it doesn't make business sense. Again, even if it did happen, the impact on player procurement wouldn't be that heavy. Considering, even in this negative and unlikely scenario, we'd stagger the borrowing, interest repayments wouldn't be very prohibitive. That's in the case where we'd somehow, for some reason, not have these repayments deferred.

 

Okay, imagine we live in the world where they're just going to borrow £150m, all in one lump, and need to start paying it back at 3% interest from day 1. Forgetting that these things are not going to happen, interest would be 4.5m a year. But only if we sent loadsamoney in to broker the deal.

 

I totally agree with you about needed to get back into the CL, and needed to put money into the squad. I think, regardless of other faults, they've done that pretty well. Whether those players were good or not doesn't change the fact that the money was provide for bringing in players. Part of that was raised by selling shit players, sure, but that's just smart business.

[Code]

Real Madrid Tops The World's Most Valuable Sports Teams - Forbes

[Nightcat]

FSG are amongst the worst owners in the League. All teams are taking advantage of the new TV rights deal and are looking to strengthen their squads. We are sell to buy again. They are terrible, they hire under-qualified people to run the club.

 

We may sign a decent player if we sell Suarez. That's where we are at the moment.

[dennis tooth]

Not agreeing or disagreeing with either side, but I would say that if Arsenal has chosen to fund their stadium in a way that restricts cash flow for transfers, then that is their business. At the end of the day, their debt for the stadium will be smaller and the costs thereon lower, than if they had not done this. Its like paying down the mortgage on your house in a more accelerated way - hurts short term but when its done you are laughing.

 

However, just because they did it that way, does not mean our owners would do it the same way. Maybe our owners would do a whip around the shareholders of FSG and raise the cash privately by debenture, or some other more long term plan, in which case the cash flow required to be repaid might be longer term, and more manageable as a result. If they see that cash flows inward are more rewarding than expected, they could allow for accelerated repayment in the terms of the deal.

 

Just saying that financing methods can be flexible to what both parties involved want to achieve.

 

Thats true. To be fair its Xerxes using Arsenal as some model as the crux of his argument, along with Numero.

Actually they are diverting/disrupting any sane and reasoned discussion on the subject by doing it.

Personally I dont think its as straightforward as you make out, we always dream of best case scenario, I think if anything our interest would be higher due to the credit crunch etc.

Also Arsenal had very valuable land at highbury they sold off. However I'd welcome a sane discussion on the matter I just havnt seen one, most the people arguing the case for or against have their heads up their arses in the sand in their vagina.

In the end I think it is a diversion, we can try and fund a new stadium and watch billionaires buying clubs and getting top players in and shooting up the league past us, or we can focus on the football side and get our team together under a top manager, I dont beleive Brendan is but he's here so he's gonna get his chance, the owners have invested in him, he has a blank record really being young so we doubters will have to wait and see as he's getting his chance either way. They wont sack him until they are flogging a dead horse, even if he does well I can see Roman coming calling for him and think he would go. Then we can get Wenger in to oversee the building of a new stadium by being ridiculously good in the transfer market, although we will stand still for years wherever we were at that point. Or something.

[dennis tooth]

Their intentions are fairly well established, and I anticipate no change.

 

They will continue to rationalise the wage bill, I don't expect Reina to be here at the start of the season. As for big signings, with Swansea signing a £12m player who want Euro football the new order is pretty clear. We may emulate that, but I don't expect £20m plus signings.

 

If Luis goes I would expect around half to be reinvested and the balance of wages saved.

 

Prob worth throwin a few quid on us making a £20m plus signing or two then