Why have FSG not yet appointed key staff?

[Gym Beglin]

Do none of you like a challenge?

 

I accept that it's a tough old slog to compete against City, United and Chelsea without a bucket of money, but a team like Bilbao showed that the game is still just 11 v 11.

 

If we need money to buy new, better players for our system (yes, a system, tactics, ffs) then we'll have to sell some players or we'll have to dig deeper to find cheaper versions of the players we need. It can be done. I'd rather get behind this manager and team, I'd rather have hope (not expectation) that we can fight, rather than mope around and give up on the club and the manager because we haven't got some Arab gay playing with us for a few years.

 

I'd rather do it the hard way than be gifted it. That's what keeps me positive, the reward IS the hard work. This is why Rodgers isn't bleating on about winning the league, he's a realist, he knows that there is a way to challenge but it won't be easy. Part 1 is to get back into the CL and get some of that money. That's the challenge this year.

 

I LIKE all this, football SHOULD be a challenge. Rodgers showed that size and money and big names don't count for much last season, his Swansea team outshone most others at times, and finished above big spenders like Sunderland, Stoke and Villa. That was with Danny Graham up front and no-marks at the back. If he can replicate just a bit of that team ethic with us, then we could get CL.

 

Arsenal came third last season with 70 points.

That broke down to 21 wins and then 7 draws and 10 defeats.

We could get 23 wins, 0 draws, and 15 losses and finish with 69 points.

Any way you look at it, it's not a huge mountain. It's a challenge, but with the likes of Suarez, Gerrard, Borini and Lucas we can make a real go of it. Let's get Dempsey and another name in and let's get behind this.

[xerxes]

I don't think that 14% is quite right. I think you have missed out the £30m loan the owners have made (they paid £220m cash to buy didn't they?).

 

Also, and more importantly, whilst that £30m extra from the TV deal should in theory go striaght to the bottom line as there are no increase in costs to go with it, in reality there will be massive wage inflation for the players as its an increase that all the clubs are getting (well, somewhere between £20-40m for each club all things being equal), and they will spend it to be/stay competitive. So you will not only have to pay more money to beat the competition to buy players, you will have to offer higher wages to get those players in, and higher wages to keep the players you want as well. Within 2 years, there will not be much of that £30m left, if any, to add to the profit line.

 

Also, the new Barclays deal you mention is small fry really (although of course every little helps), its gone up from £27.5m per season to £40m I think, so £12.5m extra split between the 20 clubs, and thats if it all goes to the clubs.

 

Really, I don't think you should be looking at any increased revenues in terms of an annual return on their funds invested, as any increased profits I think will be reinvested into the club, over the medium term anyway. I don't think they will be taking dividends out for a while, if at all. Football is not a 'profit making' industry, you only have to look around to see that. Their profit will come from capital appreciation when they sell their stake, and that's why their best bet is grow the brand and to be in it for the long haul and to make us a successful team (which I agree for them does not necessarily mean that we need to win things).

 

A fair reply, I agree with much of it.

 

The 14% figure was only ever intended as a crude marker and was always going to be a hostage to fortune. Suffice to say that it is a significant windfall.

 

The neutral effect of the improved windfall PL/TV payments is a point well made, our competitors will be at least as well off.

 

In your final paragraph you say that few owners are looking for income out of football clubs, I agree. Whether that is true of FSG remains to be seen, it is commonplace in American sports ownership for owners to take out perceived “surplus” cash.

 

For me the problem for FSG is that the capital value of LFC will only significantly lift when the club is back playing regular CL football and taking the revenue from a bigger stadium ( expenditure does not count for FFP, but income does). But both require a level of investment which I doubt they are prepared to make.

[silverlining]

How many CVs a week do you send them, xerxes?

[xerxes]

Is that Roma Fella Dibenedetto still on the FSG board?

Yes, hence the Borini deal and Fenway friendly.

[Ranxerox]

they're nothing but coupon clipping bond holders. They're full of shit and the club will go nowhere as long as they own it.

[The Woolster]

A fair reply, I agree with much of it.

 

The 14% figure was only ever intended as a crude marker and was always going to be a hostage to fortune. Suffice to say that it is a significant windfall.

 

The neutral effect of the improved windfall PL/TV payments is a point well made, our competitors will be at least as well off.

 

In your final paragraph you say that few owners are looking for income out of football clubs, I agree. Whether that is true of FSG remains to be seen, it is commonplace in American sports ownership for owners to take out perceived “surplus” cash.

 

For me the problem for FSG is that the capital value of LFC will only significantly lift when the club is back playing regular CL football and taking the revenue from a bigger stadium ( expenditure does not count for FFP, but income does). But both require a level of investment which I doubt they are prepared to make.

 

Can't say I know much about American sports finances, but I'd imiagine that one of the main reasons for being able to generate surplus cash, let alone take it out, is due to the salary caps, and another being that many new stadium builds are paid for in part or all from public funds. If there is cash that can't be spent on playing staff, and doesn't need to be spent on a new stadium, then it makes sense that it will be taken out.

 

I personally think they are prepared to invest to those levels, but they are perhaps showing some prudence by waiting to see if they need to first.

[xerxes]

Can't say I know much about American sports finances, but I'd imiagine that one of the main reasons for being able to generate surplus cash, let alone take it out, is due to the salary caps, and another being that many new stadium builds are paid for in part or all from public funds. If there is cash that can't be spent on playing staff, and doesn't need to be spent on a new stadium, then it makes sense that it will be taken out.

 

I personally think they are prepared to invest to those levels, but they are perhaps showing some prudence by waiting to see if they need to first.

On para one- again fair comment.

 

On para two, I do not share your confidence, but hope that I am wrong.

[llego]

Do none of you like a challenge?

 

I accept that it's a tough old slog to compete against City, United and Chelsea without a bucket of money, but a team like Bilbao showed that the game is still just 11 v 11.

 

If we need money to buy new, better players for our system (yes, a system, tactics, ffs) then we'll have to sell some players or we'll have to dig deeper to find cheaper versions of the players we need. It can be done. I'd rather get behind this manager and team, I'd rather have hope (not expectation) that we can fight, rather than mope around and give up on the club and the manager because we haven't got some Arab gay playing with us for a few years.

 

I'd rather do it the hard way than be gifted it. That's what keeps me positive, the reward IS the hard work. This is why Rodgers isn't bleating on about winning the league, he's a realist, he knows that there is a way to challenge but it won't be easy. Part 1 is to get back into the CL and get some of that money. That's the challenge this year.

 

I LIKE all this, football SHOULD be a challenge. Rodgers showed that size and money and big names don't count for much last season, his Swansea team outshone most others at times, and finished above big spenders like Sunderland, Stoke and Villa. That was with Danny Graham up front and no-marks at the back. If he can replicate just a bit of that team ethic with us, then we could get CL.

 

Arsenal came third last season with 70 points.

That broke down to 21 wins and then 7 draws and 10 defeats.

We could get 23 wins, 0 draws, and 15 losses and finish with 69 points.

Any way you look at it, it's not a huge mountain. It's a challenge, but with the likes of Suarez, Gerrard, Borini and Lucas we can make a real go of it. Let's get Dempsey and another name in and let's get behind this.

 

Sometimes you make excellent posts.

[The Woolster]

On para one- again fair comment.

 

On para two, I do not share your confidence, but hope that I am wrong.

 

Perhaps they won't, but I think I fair comparison would be what Lerner did at Villa. He waited a couple of seasons I think before he really pushed to get into the top 4, it didn't work and he has cut back accordingly, and we have to remember he was starting from a lower base, and it is just his backing.

 

I think FSG are trying to see if we can get into the top 4 more or less with what we have/earn after a bit of investment is the squad last year, afterall, it is not out of the question. If we don't, I think they will invest in the squad over and above what we earn to try get us there. These guys are not stupid, they know that if they really want to increase the value of the club, we need to be in the Champs League, and that sometimes you need to speculate to accumulate, but they will be sensible about it and they might only be perpared to do it over a 3/4 transfer window period, as Lerner did. If we don't get in after that, then I can see them leaving it at that.

 

As for the stadium, they could have come in a built one, but again I think they are waiting to see if they need to, as it makes far more sense financially to redevelop Anfield.

 

I have nothing to base this on other than I get the feeling that they know what they are doing, but that they are also canny, and won't spend unless they need to. They will know that the best way for them to take the most profit from this is to increase the value of the club, and they will know that it needs a bigger capacity and Champs League to do so. Above their acquisition investment, they've put in £30m between however many there are, which is a pittance really, so I find it hard to believe that they would not be prepared to put in more, especially for a new stadium which should really pay for itself once its built.