clangers

Very true. Even if we were to put aside our objections to Owen (I can't personally) we'd be bringing in a former striker who effectively retired years ago. We'd be better off bringing Robbie back. Owen has played something like 82 games in nearly 10 years? Apart from the fact that his pace went years ago and we assume he's still a clinical finisher (not convinced by that) we still have to get past his made of glass physique. He'd be here 30 seconds before a torn hamstring ruled him out for the rest of the season.

Great post, I see little difference between FSG and G&H beyond basic financial competence and media skills. I'm amazed so many are trusting of FSG's intentions after our previous experiences. It's two years since the purchase, no movement or news about the stadium (does it really take two years just to make a decision?), a substantial reduction in wages despite an increase in TV money and sponsorship. A new manager appointed to apparently get more out of less. Let's just stick with Tom's own statements. "we are financially capable to compete with anybody in world football" "It is critical we make the Champions League because there is so much revenue associated with that" "We see our competitors not just as Chelsea or Manchester City and Manchester United but we see Barcelona and Real Madrid as teams that are iconic and playing good football." Seems strange given Tom's statements why our manager would be desperately scrapping around for a couple of million on the last day of the transfer window then?

This does need to be explained. That old line again regarding a transfer budget not actually being a transfer budget. I'm pretty sure we used to have former American owners who pulled exactly the same stunt? If the owners think we're in such dire financial straights then be honest about it, they don't have to go into details. Perhaps not best a couple of months back to be claiming that 'we can compete with anyone in football' though? Despite the folly of Kenny's spending, let's just remind ourselves that a fair amount of wage reduction went on whilst Commolli was in charge although nothing like the huge reduction over the last transfer window. I've little doubt that the objective of the last transfer window as far as the owners were concerned was to slash the wage bill, everything else was secondary.

A cheeky £3.5 million bid for Dempsey.

"We certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football." , I can't remember who said that previously? The words 'spade' and 'ground' come to mind.

FSG's strategy relies on FFP to be fully implemented, something which I think is unlikely, so no real chance short of Rodger's turning out to be an unbelievably talented manager and the youth setup producing a generation of talent, even then to go beyond breaking into the top four just looks impossible without serious investment. Profit and football have never really mixed, of all the Premiership clubs only United and Arsenal are substantially profitable and both are servicing debt (for very different reasons).

This. His contradictory comments make a bit more sense now, distress signals in effect where he's been trying to put a bit of pressure on the club to back him a little more. Suspect he might have had a hand in the Carroll situation and it was in effect a gamble to offload him in the hope of forcing the club to act. £3 million for Dempsey on the last day of the transfer window is a disgrace if true.

It's interesting to note that FSG are routinely absolved of any responsibility for appointing Kenny and particularly Commolli (within a matter of days) or for that matter signing off on these deals. That £70+ million didn't largely come from FSG's own pockets so it's peculiar that there should now be a 'price to pay' or punishment taken out on their own club?

It's looking that way, we'll be the most profitable 11th placed club in Premiership history. Actually to be fair if this is part of a long term strategy to make us profitable to ultimately allow us to re-invest sustainably in the club then fair enough. How far we may have fallen and how rapidly any profit deteriorates is open to question? The law of diminishing returns? They could equally just be looking to slash the wage bill (which they've done over two years) to make us a more attractive proposition to a new buyer?

Time to make our owners realise how miserable Liverpool supporters can make their lives. They're certainly going to go off using email I suspect. We're nothing more than a group of billionaire owners little investment plaything.

Perhaps not leaving it to the absolute last couple of hours of the transfer window to try to cut a deal with a club who aren't that desperate to offload wasn't the brightest idea? Even less smart is to choose to offload your only other recognised striker the day before. We must surely be the worst operators in the transfer market anywhere in the world?

Agree with this and my reason to question their intentions. They've sold the prudence line on the back of G&H quite nicely. No doubt the previous management wasted money but it was money raised through the sale of existing players and the profits from these sales. You'd have to be a chump to buy a Premiership club with apparent aspirations of champions league football and not realise it's going to require sustained and substantial levels of investment beyond any return in the near future. FSG have made a huge issue of FFP implementation and it's no surprise why, it gives them the hope of bypassing the substantial investment they'd have to make to make us truly competitive. I'd suggest what we're seeing is a considerable downsizing of expectations by FSG, an attempt to reduce overheads e.g. wages below turnover to make the club profitable within a less ambitious plan. I've always suspected FSG thought they could pick up one of the biggest Premiership clubs, in distress, for a relatively low initial purchase cost and spend a limited amount of funds restoring it to a top four position protected by FFP. After two years of ownership there still appears to be little clear progress on either a new stadium or redevelopment, they've put it in a net figure of £40 million over two years easily offset by the reduction in wages. What we're witnessing is plan 'B', they've twigged that it simply requires too much investment to turn us into a truly competitive side at the top end of the table so it's a case of turn us into a profitable club for them, install a new inexperienced manager who will operate on a very limited budget and hope against hope that he can build a team. The history of the Premiership suggests that without significant investment that isn't achievable. It's seemed peculiar all summer that a new manager and very much FSG's chosen man isn't really being backed. It's what you'd surely expect with a new manager, a bit of investment, not a fire sale with an exodus of players rapidly cutting the wage bill without adequate replacements. Listening to our manager hopelessly stating that we need to offload player 'x' or 'y' to perhaps bring in a new face has been hugely concerning. I'm really not advocating City or Chelsea levels of investment but we can't even afford Clint Dempsey? Seriously? John Henry's net value is £1.1 billion alone. Is this really what we expected or rather feared? If G&H we're behaving like this we'd be arranging a mass protest rather than excusing billionaires who can't even seem to manage more than the odd visit to Anfield. An outbreak of leprosy is more likely to be seen in the Anfield area than our owners. Too busy managing their real investment, the Red Sox I guess?

Face the facts here, the objective of the current transfer window has been to substantially reduce the wage bill, mission accomplished. We've brought in a young inexperienced manager in his first big job who won't kick up too much fuss (at least initially) and as he's stated himself is used to working with 'limited budgets'. Wages dwarf transfer window spends and any expenditure this summer will have comfortably been offset by the annual reduction in wages.

Yeah we've had previous American owners who promised the earth, FSG have played their hand quite well by cashing in on the disaster of G&H by promising very little and they've delivered as far as I'm concerned. How's the new stadium progressing, two years and counting?

Nah they're just too busy blindly following the FSG company line.

In reality knocking one out to Jim White.

And no one else apparently if you believe the gossip. Backup move for Dempsey? FSG slashing the wage bill?

I've been following this apparently named 'deadline day' BSKyB™ and I've not heard a word about 'little Mickey'? What's happening? He'll rue the day he failed to put out another glossy promo brochure.

I'm not suggesting spending like the last 18 months which was frankly reckless. Equally swinging to the opposite extreme and saying live entirely within our means is equally flawed. If we want to develop and progress it will mean short-term investment backing the new manager. If we choose not to then FSG are not going to see a return on their initial investment and they and us might as well get used to 7/8th place finishes at best. The idea that in the modern game we can pick up a manager who can turn us into a top four side on a shoestring budget is as flawed as spending £35 million on a striker with a little over three months Premiership experience.

I wouldn't disagree with that, clearly our scouting leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. It is however important to note that this is a business investment for FSG and beyond the initial acquisition costs they haven't had to invest a great deal of funds themselves. Less successful businesses are often bought with a requirement of investment beyond their current turnover in order to build the business and see a profit over the longer term. This is precisely where FSG find themselves. The situation we are now in is that we have a talented but highly inexperienced manager being expected to be competitive with a weaker squad than our rivals who are able to invest more than we are.

Clearly the funds have been spent poorly but we need to remember that only a minority of the £110 million or so spent came direct from FSG, around £35 million. The majority of it came from income raised through sales of existing players. I'm not trying to downplay the poor use of the funds, the management team still had over £100 million of disposable income to spend but it would have been much worse if it had all come from FSG. My concern here is that going from allowing Kenny to spend everything coming in over a relatively short period of time through to forcing Brendan to live within the clubs means is deeply flawed management of the club. Feast to famine if you like. The reality is that what is required at the moment is consistent investment in the club at levels beyond our income for a few years. I'm not suggesting City or Chelsea levels of investment but if the club isn't to wither on the vine this is an immediate requirement.

I know, I just don't know how? I used to hope it was UEFA fixing but it clearly is because he's made a pact with the devil.

It just appears to be an agreement by both sides allowing Walcott to see out his contract and leave on a free next summer?

Still think they should have done the paralympics before the olympics, it does have a bit of an after the main event feel. It's noticeable that it's getting a fraction of the media coverage of the Olympics (understandable in a way). If it had been the other way around it would have been able to cash in on the build up and excitement of the Olympics and wouldn't have been having to compete with lots of other sports now underway.

Walcott > Downing. I'm using that assessment for every player we're linked with. Seems to have the talent and he has improved over the last couple of seasons, just that nagging doubt about his 'footballing brain' if you like.