Go fuck yourselves FSG

[clangers]

But we are investing in players and infrastructure, so I'd not worry too much about that.

 

We are but we're not able to invest at the levels of the clubs we wish to compete with. Our competitors have greater income, unlimited backing or already established infrastructure. Our failure predates even G&H, we've missed the boat by not dealing with our limited stadium capacity a decade or so ago.

 

I'd suggest that FSG's plan falls down because what is actually required is a significant investment beyond their means in order to break the stranglehold of the top four and thus allowing us to unlock higher income levels alongside higher quality player recruitment. I'm not knocking them for not putting in substantial additional investment, football is littered with casualties throwing money at it. I suspect they'd hoped that FFP would protect them from this.

 

At present we're hoping to break the top four with a lower level of funding and the hope that our management team will bridge the gap by making more out of less.

 

I'm still hoping for a complete collapse in football financing, a levelling of the playing field. I'd assumed it might have happened by now, but each TV deal just gets bigger and bigger.

Edited July 27, 2013 by clangers

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

We are but we're not able to invest at the levels of the clubs we wish to compete with. Our competitors have greater income, unlimited backing or already established infrastructure.

 

Then we've got three choices, mate.

 

1) Give up. Accept we can't match the very richest teams and just jack it all in.

2) Sell to ultra rich businessman if we can find one.

3) Build like other teams have, whilst still spending lots of money on players. Regardless of where it comes from, we've spent the best part of £200m on players under FSG in the last 3 seasons, and this summer isn't over yet. I'd expect another £40m worth of spending yet, more if we sell Suarez. We've spent more than United (both net and gross) since we finished 2nd behind them in 2009, yet in those five seasons they've won the league three times and we've finished 7th, 6th, 8th and 7th. I don't think the money being spent is the issue, and if it is we should opt for option 1. If we can't get back into the top four with our current level of spending, throwing more money isn't going to help much.

 

I'd suggest that FSG's plan falls down because what is actually required is a significant investment beyond their means in order to break the stranglehold of the top four and thus allowing us to unlock higher income levels alongside higher quality player recruitment. I'm not knocking them for not putting in substantial additional investment, football is littered with casualties throwing money at it.

 

At present we're hoping to break the top four with a lower level of funding and the hope that our management team will bridge the gap by making more out of less.

 

Funny thing is, Arsenal have been ever present in the top four, despite spending significantly less than us. It's not about being beyond their means. Some seem to forget just how much we've spent on players.

[Guest davelfc]

Isn't option 3 just another way of saying, feeder club? isn't that what the other 'also rans' do in the PL?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not sure spending £200m over three years and rejecting £40m offers falls under 'feeder club' particularly. I'm not saying I don't want them to spend more, of course I do. I want us to be putting in a offers for top players, but we've got to look at the reality of it. There's a new super-class of owner. Chelsea, City, Monaco, PSG. They can buy whomever they want. We've got to fit in beneath that bracket. There's no reason we can't spend big on players, we've done it several times lately, but we've got to be back in the CL and attracting the right players.

[Guest davelfc]

I'm not sure spending £200m over three years and rejecting £40m offers falls under 'feeder club' particularly. I'm not saying I don't want them to spend more, of course I do. I want us to be putting in a offers for top players, but we've got to look at the reality of it. There's a new super-class of owner. Chelsea, City, Monaco, PSG. They can buy whomever they want. We've got to fit in beneath that bracket. There's no reason we can't spend big on players, we've done it several times lately, but we've got to be back in the CL and attracting the right players.

 

Yeah I didn't say we ARE a feeding club, then again none of them do admit it. You don't win things and have little ambition, well your ambitious players leave you. We should know all about that because for years we scooped them up.

 

This isn't a dig at FSG, it's a lament about football in general and where we find ourselves.

[clangers]

Funny thing is, Arsenal have been ever present in the top four, despite spending significantly less than us. It's not about being beyond their means. Some seem to forget just how much we've spent on players.

 

I'd agree entirely with your post and in truth despite the temptation I wouldn't want a sugar daddy owner.

 

As I said 'making more with less', despite the stick that Wenger has received he's done an outstanding job keeping them competitive. The Emirates stadium put Arsenal's finances in a difficult situation for several years, simply remaining top four has been a considerable achievement. They are however an exception to the rule. Let's hope that our current manager is cut from the same cloth.

[clangers]

This isn't a dig at FSG, it's a lament about football in general and where we find ourselves.

 

Spot on, that's my feeling too. I have very little to criticise FSG for financially and after G&H it could have been much, much worse.

[stringvest]

To be fair NV, we have also largely completed a (much required) pruning back of the wage bill and have recouped significant amounts through sales. I'm not sure our net outlay (transfers and wages) is anything to write home about.

 

I do take the point about Arsenal, but I share Neil Gs view that an accelerated investment (a transformation budget if you like) is required to materially affect our chances of getting back into the top 4 quickly. For me, it's existence or otherwise is the indicator of whether FSG sees the club as a long or short term proposition.

[Ranxerox]

Some seem to forget just how much we've spent on players.

 

...not to mention manager payoffs.

 

I think the sale reports are rubbish. They're just getting the club to the point where they can start realizing some good profits from the club, why sell now? FSG is a "sporting" business, its not like their core business is shipping and they just fell into ownership of the club. They're here for a long spell.

[Lario]

Story appeared in the paper(s).

FSG released a statement saying there's no truth in it.

Story gets pulled.

 

No smoke without fire me thinks.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

To be fair NV, we have also largely completed a (much required) pruning back of the wage bill and have recouped significant amounts through sales. I'm not sure our net outlay (transfers and wages) is anything to write home about.

 

Selling players who are earning loads, for a decent fee, then reinvesting that fee is a good thing, isn't it? Yes, that reduces the wage bill and lowers the net spend, but that seems to cover up what's really going on. I think it's a good thing to sell players who aren't performing and buy ones who are. Regardless of what the net spend says.

 

It's all about the amount of funds and how you spend those funds, how you generate the funds is secondary. If we're talking about net spend, it has to be done in the context that it's a club losing money every year. The only way we can spend such big amounts is because the owners are enabling it.

 

Even if we had no players, £200m is enough to buy a squad capable of challenging for fourth. I think the net spend thing can go either way, but it's sometimes used as an excuse for frittering money (I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm saying it hides the real issue of how we're spending the money).

 

For an example (and I know it didn't happen in this order, but it's just an illustration), selling Carroll for 15m and buying Sturridge for 12m means our net spend is -£3m. Surely we can't win by spending -£3m. The expectation must surely be, in the net spend argument, that we shouldn't expect anything from Sturridge or the side because we've not put in the net funds. But what's really happened is we've spent £35m on a player who sucked, taken a big loss, then invested it much better the second time around. How far do we go back with net spend?

 

We just need to spend what we've got on players who are worth what we paid for them or more. If we sell Meireles for 12m and buy Coutinho for 8, we're going to improve.

 

I do take the point about Arsenal, but I share Neil Gs view that an accelerated investment (a transformation budget if you like) is required to materially affect our chances of getting back into the top 4 quickly. For me, it's existence or otherwise is the indicator of whether FSG sees the club as a long or short term proposition.

 

I think wiser spending than we've shown over the past 5 years is what's required, because the amount we put into buying players is absolutely fine. Let's just get it right, like we have been recently, then we can get back into the CL spots and attract the top level of player again, got knows we've been paying the fees to get them.

[Tyler Durden]

Makes me laugh when people talk about us saving fucking wages, yea seens it's not being reinvested in the squad why is anyone talking about it?

[Timão]

 

For an example (and I know it didn't happen in this order, but it's just an illustration), selling Carroll for 15m and buying Sturridge for 12m means our net spend is -£3m. Surely we can't win by spending -£3m. The expectation must surely be, in the net spend argument, that we shouldn't expect anything from Sturridge or the side because we've not put in the net funds. But what's really happened is we've spent £35m on a player who sucked, taken a big loss, then invested it much better the second time around. How far do we go back with net spend?

 

We just need to spend what we've got on players who are worth what we paid for them or more. If we sell Meireles for 12m and buy Coutinho for 8, we're going to improve.

 

I think wiser spending than we've shown over the past 5 years is what's required, because the amount we put into buying players is absolutely fine. Let's just get it right, like we have been recently, then we can get back into the CL spots and attract the top level of player again, got knows we've been paying the fees to get them.

 

Thsnk you, st least someone is talking sense!

 

We will not outspend City or Chelsea, our financial situation is, I'd say, still not great seeing the state we were in in 2010 and managerial pay-offs etc.

 

As such, we have to be smart in the market, regardless of how much we have got.

 

Getting rid of Carroll for more money than we paid for Coutinho is smart. If did such a deal with a little more frequency we could easily compete for a CL place.

[Nightcat]

It's not true. Made up story by the scum rag, which doesn't surprise me.

 

Ben Smith ‏@BenSmithBBC 58m

FSG statement contd: "We have had no meetings with anyone about a sale ... any suggestion of a sale is fabrication."

 

I wish their responses were as prompt in regards to reports about selling our star players.

 

Scumbags. I can't wait we get rid of them

 

John Henry is a billionaire.

 

He's close to being a billionaire in Dollars, only because of his shares in Liverpool and Red Sox. They make money by running sport franchises. Investors my arshe.

[stringvest]

Selling players who are earning loads, for a decent fee, then reinvesting that fee is a good thing, isn't it? Yes, that reduces the wage bill and lowers the net spend, but that seems to cover up what's really going on. I think it's a good thing to sell players who aren't performing and buy ones who are. Regardless of what the net spend says.

 

It's all about the amount of funds and how you spend those funds, how you generate the funds is secondary. If we're talking about net spend, it has to be done in the context that it's a club losing money every year. The only way we can spend such big amounts is because the owners are enabling it.

 

Even if we had no players, £200m is enough to buy a squad capable of challenging for fourth. I think the net spend thing can go either way, but it's sometimes used as an excuse for frittering money (I'm not saying that's what you're doing, I'm saying it hides the real issue of how we're spending the money).

 

For an example (and I know it didn't happen in this order, but it's just an illustration), selling Carroll for 15m and buying Sturridge for 12m means our net spend is -£3m. Surely we can't win by spending -£3m. The expectation must surely be, in the net spend argument, that we shouldn't expect anything from Sturridge or the side because we've not put in the net funds. But what's really happened is we've spent £35m on a player who sucked, taken a big loss, then invested it much better the second time around. How far do we go back with net spend?

 

We just need to spend what we've got on players who are worth what we paid for them or more. If we sell Meireles for 12m and buy Coutinho for 8, we're going to improve.

 

I think wiser spending than we've shown over the past 5 years is what's required, because the amount we put into buying players is absolutely fine. Let's just get it right, like we have been recently, then we can get back into the CL spots and attract the top level of player again, got knows we've been paying the fees to get them.

 

You won't get any argument from me wrt judicious spending. We've been shit at it for a generation. So for me, effective reinvestment of the current squad spend is a must too. But I'm not sure that is enough. Incremental improvements are one thing, and very welcome, but game-changing injections of cash - spent wisely over the course of two or three transfer windows - will have a material effect on our chances and on general perception of the owners' intent.

 

In answer to your question on net spend, I wouldn't think it unreasonable to begin at the point at which FSG took ownership of the club. I would be very interested to know the net spend on the squad since then. Not that I would be using it as a stick to beat them with, because as I've said numerous times, I don't think they're in it for the long haul.

[stringvest]

I wish their responses were as prompt in regards to reports about selling our star players.

 

Scumbags. I can't wait we get rid of them

 

 

 

He's close to being a billionaire in Dollars, only because of his shares in Liverpool and Red Sox. They make money by running sport franchises. Investors my arshe.

 

What is it you expect? They are not scumbags, they are operating in the manner in which they said they would.

[Razoray]

I wish their responses were as prompt in regards to reports about selling our star players.

 

Scumbags. I can't wait we get rid of them

 

 

 

He's close to being a billionaire in Dollars, only because of his shares in Liverpool and Red Sox. They make money by running sport franchises. Investors my arshe.

 

Jesus Nightcat, are you not a fan of FSG? I hadn't noticed at all. Maybe you should mention it more in your posts, just in case someone missed it.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, like the rest of us but seriously give it a rest man. Mix it up a little. Surely you have other thoughts on LFC but everytime you post, everyone on the forum knows what it will be about, it's becoming a tad boring TBH.

[Nightcat]

Jesus Nightcat, are you not a fan of FSG? I hadn't noticed at all. Maybe you should mention it more in your posts, just in case someone missed it.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, like the rest of us but seriously give it a rest man. Mix it up a little. Surely you have other thoughts on LFC but everytime you post, everyone on the forum knows what it will be about, it's becoming a tad boring TBH.

 

No I won't give it a rest until they are gone. I'm free to express my opinion. They are disgusting. I have explained many times why. They are not investors, they make their money by running Sports Franchises. This model can not be implemented successfully in football. In football you need investors who made their money elsewhere and they are ready to invest their profits in a football club and wait for a return a few years later, maybe decades(i.e. Berlusconi, Moratti etc...).

 

FSG reduced the wage bill, they've consistently sold to our domestic rivals and continue to do so, they've imposed a "sell to buy policy" when the TV rights doubled this season and when new sponsors are paying double compared to the previous, they've disrespected Kenny, hired, Ayre, Chang, Rodgers, all of them clearly not qualified etc... Three years now we've made no progress whatsoever. Overall they failed to capitalise on Liverpool's enormous, global fanbase. So, Yes, they should sell up and leave.

[piscinin]

You won't get any argument from me wrt judicious spending. We've been shit at it for a generation. So for me, effective reinvestment of the current squad spend is a must too. But I'm not sure that is enough. Incremental improvements are one thing, and very welcome, but game-changing injections of cash - spent wisely over the course of two or three transfer windows - will have a material effect on our chances and on general perception of the owners' intent.

 

In answer to your question on net spend, I wouldn't think it unreasonable to begin at the point at which FSG took ownership of the club. I would be very interested to know the net spend on the squad since then. Not that I would be using it as a stick to beat them with, because as I've said numerous times, I don't think they're in it for the long haul.

 

Net 70m. Wage impact, who knows.

[stringvest]

Net 70m. Wage impact, who knows.

 

Thanks. I would interested in the wages too, as I suspect the wage bill has been substantially reduced over the course of their time here.

[stringvest]

No I won't give it a rest until they are gone. I'm free to express my opinion. They are disgusting. I have explained many times why. They are not investors, they make their money by running Sports Franchises. This model can not be implemented successfully in football. In football you need investors who made their money elsewhere and they are ready to invest their profits in a football club and wait for a return a few years later, maybe decades(i.e. Berlusconi, Moratti etc...).

 

FSG reduced the wage bill, they've consistently sold to our domestic rivals and continue to do so, they've imposed a "sell to buy policy" when the TV rights doubled this season and when new sponsors are paying double compared to the previous, they've disrespected Kenny, hired, Ayre, Chang, Rodgers, all of them clearly not qualified etc... Three years now we've made no progress whatsoever. Overall they failed to capitalise on Liverpool's enormous, global fanbase. So, Yes, they should sell up and leave.

 

Sugar Daddy it is then.

[Pureblood]

Wage impact, who knows.

70m

[piscinin]

Thanks. I would interested in the wages too, as I suspect the wage bill has been substantially reduced over the course of their time here.

 

Of course, player wages are a function of whether they are arriving or leaving the club.

 

But 114m when they took over and 130m est. in the accounts for year ending 2012.

[Neil G]

I'm on about your utter bullshit.

 

 

No I didn't.

 

 

No.

 

 

No I didn't.

 

 

That's because I didn't make a mistake.

 

 

I stand by every word I said.

 

 

About five fucking posts ago before your shitty remarks. You know, when I said I'd leave it because it would bog us down. That was when I was ready to knock it on the head.

 

 

Oy vey.

 

I was just trying to work out why you thought I was being stupid, and what you meant by the phrases of yours that I quoted. I asked you to explain them twice, and you declined. So I guessed:

 

 

You haven't explained it at all, to be fair. Since I have to guess, the only thing I can think you might mean is that I'm suggesting that, if a lender offered FSG the choice of starting the stadium repayments straight away or deferring them until the work was completed, they'd go for the former.

 

Clearly that would be a stupid decision. I haven't written anything to suggest FSG would do it though. I haven't called FSG's decision-making on this issue into question at all. I've just been considering what the most favourable terms are that they might be offered in a range of scenarios.

 

 

And you replied with this:

 

 

But, but... forget it. Your guess is almost exactly what I've said a number of times, so we're now doubly clear.

 

 

Sorry, but that looked very much to me like you were confirming that my guess was correct. That you thought I meant that FSG would make a stupid decision if offered a number of repayment options. And I told you that that wasn't what I was saying at all. In other words, that you'd made a mistake. My "shitty remarks" were me calling you on not acknowledging it, given that I thought you were savaging an opinion that I hadn't actually expressed, something you've got previous for.

 

Now you appear to be saying that's not the case after all. So I haven't got the foggiest what you meant. I suspect you're not entirely clear yourself.

 

Absolute car crash of an exchange. RIP.

[Neil G]

Barry Wom? Neil G?

 

Can I have 2 marks for 2 answers?

 

 

No, 1 out of 2. I've never said I think they're actively looking to sell, just that they'd be prepared to if they receive a good enough offer. Particularly if their strategy is based on FFP being enforced, which it doesn't look like it will be.

 

 

And they'd have got it spot on, now we've definitely been sold. You can only take your hat off to them for such foresight.

 

 

Just to be doubly clear NV, I didn't say it. Ok?

 

Don't want other people feeding you additional ammo.