Go fuck yourselves FSG

[bossy]

The nightmare is fan ownership; could you imagine the scenes if us lot were involved in decision making? It's bad enough now.

[Nightcat]

Sugar Daddy it is then.

 

You think you have insulted me or something now, eh?

 

I could call you delusional, or a football hipster, whose strange, inherent sense of football superiority is threatened by the notion of having real investment in a Football Club in 2013.

 

I couldn't care less how you would call a wealthy investor. If you want to call him sugar daddy, it's not my problem.

 

I said it many times, my preference is a Bayern Munich-Barcelona model. If that doesn't work and we'd have to look for a Private Investor, a sole owner-shareholder, then it'd better be a really rich one. One that would make money not by running Sport Franchises in America, but in another sector of the economy (construction, retail, energy etc...).

[Horus]

Saudi Buys Liverpool

[Jairzinho]

Aldi Buys Liverpool

[Guest San Don]

The nightmare is fan ownership; could you imagine the scenes if us lot were involved in decision making? It's bad enough now.

 

Hmmmm. Fan 'ownership' doesnt mean that literally. It just means the fans own the majority or all of the club shares. The club is still run by a board, chief exec and manager etc.

 

In Germany their model is most (all?) clubs must be at least 51% owned my the fans. In other words, its just like a company with shares by no individual or company can own 51% of the company.

[Guest San Don]

Hmmmm. Fan 'ownership' doesnt mean that literally. It just means the fans own the majority or all of the club shares. The club is still run by a board, chief exec and manager etc.

 

In Germany their model is most (all?) clubs must be at least 51% owned my the fans. In other words, its just like a company with shares by no individual or company can own 51% of the company.

 

Kinell, getting more dyslexic by the day. Meant to say club is owned by at least 51% BY fans and its just like a company with shares BUT no individaul or company can be a majority shareholder.

[Robinson]

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.

 

Started Corinthian and ended as Mcdonalds!!

[vanball]

You think you have insulted me or something now, eh?

 

I could call you delusional, or a football hipster, whose strange, inherent sense of football superiority is threatened by the notion of having real investment in a Football Club in 2013.

 

I couldn't care less how you would call a wealthy investor. If you want to call him sugar daddy, it's not my problem.

 

I said it many times, my preference is a Bayern Munich-Barcelona model. If that doesn't work and we'd have to look for a Private Investor, a sole owner-shareholder, then it'd better be a really rich one. One that would make money not by running Sport Franchises in America, but in another sector of the economy (construction, retail, energy etc...).

 

I am not sure that your premise is correct - FSG is owned by Henry, who is a commodities broker, or at least he made his fortune that way, and a conglomerate of other investors in FSG, notably a group of families who also own the New York Times. So in fact they are actually people that you have described above that you would like. The problem is that no one these days will throw the type of money around that it takes except the super rich individuals like Roman A. etc. And even wealthy guys like Lerner and Arsenals people run with a budget. Your model was valid in the days of Moores but numbers are way too big now.

[Barrington Womble]

 

Net 70m. Wage impact' date=' who knows.[/quote']

 

We must have cut 30m a year off the wage bill. Certainly in the last 12 months.

[piscinin]

We must have cut 30m a year off the wage bill. Certainly in the last 12 months.

 

You could be right the accounts for the last 12 months aren't out. But those that are available contradict what I would have thought based on the prevailing narrative.

 

I don't believe the new guys have been as inexpensive as we are lead to believe when we sign them. We're always told how overpaid they are when we are trying to get rid!

[index1000]

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.

 

They do not make their money running sports franchises you stupid, ranting prick. Henry is one of the worlds leading investment managers, unlike a lot of the criminal hedge funds out there (SAC, GS) Henry has not built his wealth on leveraged debt and bent regulators. He was one of the few who positioned his company for the financial meltdown that is still on-going (despite what the BBC and Osbourne claim) unlike Berlusconi who you suggest as an example of a good owner, he is not going to find himself bankrupt and languishing in a prison cell anytime soon.

The unraveling of the financial markets is a very real thing and there will be blood on the streets before it hits a bottom, the fans will be glad we had a cool head running the club through this when 'experts' look back on it in a few years time.

We will all be glad our beloved club did not fall into the hands of Kleptocrats trying to show the world how big their cocks are.

[bossy]

 

Kinell' date=' getting more dyslexic by the day. Meant to say club is owned by at least 51% BY fans and its just like a company with shares BUT no individaul or company can be a majority shareholder.[/quote']

 

I was only kidding really but when you think about it, imagine the 'fucking hell we own the club' arguments'?!!! Jesus.

[xerxes]

We must have cut 30m a year off the wage bill. Certainly in the last 12 months.

 

Wage inflation is very difficult to tame.

 

This article and graph is illuminating on the period 02/10.

 

Comparing big club spending | Alexej Behnisch

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

...not to mention manager payoffs.

 

Absolutely. Although, some of that is through their own choice. There are other costs, too. Agents, signing fees, bonuses, wages, contract extension, managerial payoffs, release fees for new managers, young players, and all that shit.

 

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.

 

Yep, I certainly wouldn't mind an extra 30/40/50m in owner's cash. That said, they've never promised it and have said a number of times that we'll spend what we generate. I'm more than willing to accept that approach.

 

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.

 

Winter 2010/11 - In

Carroll - £35m

Suarez - £22.8m

 

Winter 2010/11 - Out

Torres - £50m

Babel - £5.8m

Total Spent - £57.8m

Total Received - £55.8m

Total Winter 10/11 Net Spend = £2m

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Summer 2011/12 - In

Downing - £20m

Henderson - £16m

Enrique - £5.5m

Coates - £7m

Adam - £8.5m

Ibe - £0.5m

Bellamy - £0

Doni - £0

 

Summer 2011/12 - Out

Meireles - £12m

N'Gog - £4m

Insua - £?

Jovanovic - £0

Konchesky - £1.5m

Ayala - £0.85m

Mavinga - £1m

Poulsen - £0

 

Total Spent - £57.5m

Total Received - £19.35m

Total Summer 11/12 Net Spend = £38.15m

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Winter 2011/12 - In

Ward - £100k

 

Winter 2011/12 - Out

Aurelio - £0

 

Total Spent - £0.1m

Total Received - £0m

Total Winter 11/12 Net Spend = £0.1m

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Summer 2012/13 - In

Assaidi - £2.5m

Allen - £15m

Borini - £11m

Sahin - £1.6m (Loan Fee)

 

Summer 2012/13 - Out

Adam - £4m

Aquilani - £?*

Kuyt - £1m

Various Free - £0

 

Total Spent - £31.1m

Total Received - £5m

Total Summer 12/13 Net Spend = £26.1m

 

* The Echo says it was less than the 7m rumoured, but others have said we had to

pay the rest of his contract off, which the BBC says was £5m a year. We wouldn't have made much/anything.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Winter 2012/13 - In

Coutinho - £8.5m

Sturridge - £12m

 

Winter 2012/13 - Out

Doni - £0

Cole - £0

 

Total Spent - £20.5m

Total Received - £0m

Total Winter 12/13 Net Spend = £20.5m

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Total Net Spend so far under FSG: £86,850,000.00

 

 

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...).

 

I don't even know where to start with this totally wrong, logic devoid drivel. I think I'll just leave it to the others. What the fuck are you on about, you mad git?

[Barrington Womble]

 

You could be right the accounts for the last 12 months aren't out. But those that are available contradict what I would have thought based on the prevailing narrative.

 

I don't believe the new guys have been as inexpensive as we are lead to believe when we sign them. We're always told how overpaid they are when we are trying to get rid!

 

The trouble with the accounts, you don't know what other rubbish is getting bundled in there. It's not like each player is line itemised. FSG always seem very quick to rubbish reports that are untrue that may show them in a bad light (look how quick they moved today to distance themselves from the idea they had been trying to sell the club for example), the £25m savings off the wage bill last summer was pretty widely reported, but I don't recall FSG arguing that particular point.

[stringvest]

 

You think you have insulted me or something now' date=' eh?

 

I could call you delusional, or a football hipster, whose strange, inherent sense of football superiority is threatened by the notion of having real investment in a Football Club in 2013.

 

I couldn't care less how you would call a wealthy investor. If you want to call him sugar daddy, it's not my problem.

 

I said it many times, my preference is a Bayern Munich-Barcelona model. If that doesn't work and we'd have to look for a Private Investor, a sole owner-shareholder, then it'd better be a really rich one. One that would make money not by running Sport Franchises in America, but in another sector of the economy (construction, retail, energy etc...).[/quote']

 

I don't need to insult you Nightcat. I've no idea what you're going on about wrt inherent football superiority, so I can't respond to that. My point was that it sounds like you are asking for someone to throw in a lot of money and not expect it back, or at least be prepared to wait decades. These people, like abramovich, dont come along very often. Berlusconi, an example you gave earlier, is incomparable; a law unto himself. All of the major shareholders of FSG made their money outside sports franchising. Most of them in industries unrelated to sport.

 

FSG are not bad owners, it is clear why they bought us and to me it is clear why they are likely to sell in the short term.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'd be shocked if we saved anything like £30m a year off the wage bill. Maybe £30m per year worth of players have gone out, but with new signings coming in to replace them, plus wage increases for those signing new contracts, and the wages we're still paying for some of those playing at other clubs, I'd be surprised if it was much more than double figures.

[stringvest]

I'd be shocked if we saved anything like £30m a year off the wage bill. Maybe £30m per year worth of players have gone out' date=' but with new signings coming in to replace them, plus wage increases for those signing new contracts, and the wages we're still paying for some of those playing at other clubs, I'd be surprised if it was much more than double figures.[/quote']

 

If it was 15-20 million per year, or 45-60 million since they bought the club, then the numbers start to look less impressive, particularly within the context of substantially increased off field revenue.

[piscinin]

The trouble with the accounts, you don't know what other rubbish is getting bundled in there. It's not like each player is line itemised. FSG always seem very quick to rubbish reports that are untrue that may show them in a bad light (look how quick they moved today to distance themselves from the idea they had been trying to sell the club for example), the £25m savings off the wage bill last summer was pretty widely reported, but I don't recall FSG arguing that particular point.

 

Who knows for sure. All I know is every year I expect to see the # go down and every year it goes up!

[Red Phoenix]

Now that those spending figures have been added, can anyone with tags already posted change one to "net cunting spend" please?* Thanks if so as there's no more room left for new ones.

 

Actually have just read through the ones already there and laughed more than I have done all day I think.

 

*clearly this is a very important issue.

[clangers]

If it was 15-20 million per year, or 45-60 million since they bought the club, then the numbers start to look less impressive, particularly within the context of substantially increased off field revenue.

 

The Liverpool Word | Liverpool FC’s Recent Accounts: Reading Beyond the Numbers

 

A pretty detailed breakdown of recent accounts, net spending, wages etc. a bit out of date now, but it does supprt the position that FSG are unlikely to be selling us in the near future.

[xerxes]

of recent accounts, net spending, wages etc. a bit out of date now, but it does supprt the position that FSG are unlikely to be selling us in the near future.

 

FSG are an investment club, if the money is right they will sell. They haven't bought us to win trophies.

[chris71]

Whatever about anything else I can't get over us blowing 11 million on Borini ! He must have some agent.

[stringvest]

 

The Liverpool Word | Liverpool FC's Recent Accounts: Reading Beyond the Numbers

 

A pretty detailed breakdown of recent accounts' date=' net spending, wages etc. a bit out of date now, but it does supprt the position that FSG are unlikely to be selling us in the near future.[/quote']

 

Thanks for that, and thanks to NV and Pisky too. What is omitted from any accounting view of the clubs finances is the impact on our earnings potential from a gradual but persistent reduction in global profile. That for me, is the determining factor.

[Timão]

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.

 

I could even respect your opinion (even though I do not agree) if you actually had your facts right.

 

Henry IS an investor and sport is not his primary business.

 

You are bascially asking for someone to make their money in one business and then spend it - as a hobby - on another, Chelsea-type.

 

Grow up, ain't going to happen anytime soon.

 

BTW, they hired Kenny, gave him a ton of money to spend, which he wasted, and then sacked him after we finished on 52 points. How unusual is that?