Topic: FSG - are they living up to their own billing?

[Tepid water]

Bostonscouse - how do you know what he/they have to back these stories and editorial pieces up?

Another Times employee, Rory Smith, was last night vocally calling Commolli's role into question. What did he have to back his view up? Ben Smith and Olly Kay have a clear view of the scale and nature of investment in the summer. What did they know to back that up?

A press room full of Reds, all hinting that questions ought to be asked. But no, it's lazy journalism and they're rustling up lazy fiction out of thin air.

I'm personally glad some of them are calling FSG into question.

Fwiw I think it's abit harsh to knock comolli for not signing the likes of Ramirez from their home country directly.  It's very difficult to get work permits for players like that in the uk, so it's darn near impossible.
Plus, it kind of ignores the fact we just signed Coates from his home country and that we have a vibrant youth set up.

The Evans article isn't lazy journalism (whoever said that), it is merely his concern as we don't see any progress in club infrastructure...

[mercurial]

That's fine, but it doesn't mean he was going to be a long term solution even after that if it were up to them. And I doubt he was going to be an interim appointee either. Go back and look at some of the posts on here leading up to and when they gave Kenny a contract. You'll find that the fans were much more fervent in pushing for him to be signed quickly, many were impatient that no contract had been announced, and when it was many felt it was too short a commitment. I remember JWH's twitter was lit up for weeks with "sign Kenny" and "why hasn't Kenny got a contract yet" and that was after they led the initial charge for Roy's (justified) sacking and Kenny's stepping in.

I don't consider them blameless for it, but it's completely revisionist to pretend that it was solely Kenny's on the field success before even a transfer window that drove them to appointing him. I doubt his name would have ever been in the mix for anything in the first place if it wasn't for the fans. Fans want greater involvement because they know better and then when they get it and it goes a bit wrong it's never their fault because fans are usually the first ones to place blame.

Let's be honest, sentimentality was a large reason why Dalglish is here and that isn't going to be something that's driven by LFC. I'm not even saying that Kenny can't turn it around with a solid transfer window, I'm just saying that if you accept the premise that the disappointing season is due largely to him and his signings then you have to accept that that traces back to the fans as well as FSG.

Succinctly put. We fans are as much to blame as Kenny. When we had spanish players a whole lot of us said foreigners never give 100% when playing sides like wigan and stoke. We had fans hounding out Rafa after one bad season. A bunch of people thinking that replacing kenny will solve problems need to take a long hard look at themselves and the meaning of what it means to support. We are in this together, win or lose, we have to fight this out with what we have. 

[surfer]

Just gone through our transfer business this season on lfchistory.net:

It seems we have spent about 34.55 million pounds net this season (fees for poulsen undisclosed and insua unknown). Reasonable level of investment from them.

News still pending on the stadium, but overall, it's a good thing to maintain a watching brief. The forthcoming window will provide more info, and to an extent, I could understand if they're unwilling to provide more than what they did this season.

[rocco]

 

Just gone through our transfer business this season on lfchistory.net:

It seems we have spent about 34.55 million pounds net this season (fees for poulsen undisclosed and insua unknown). Reasonable level of investment from them.

News still pending on the stadium, but overall, it's a good thing to maintain a watching brief. The forthcoming window will provide more info, and to an extent, I could understand if they're unwilling to provide more than what they did this season.

Think over all they have invested a decent amount in the squad but surely the  £35-37m net is around the profit the club is making ?

[Socrates7]

Think over all they have invested a decent amount in the squad but surely the  £35-37m net is around the profit the club is making ?

Exactly. It seems all they have done is just reinvest the profit we make. An improvement on the last lot but I was expecting an initial top up of our transfer fund before becoming self sufficient. This together with stadium delay means for me the honeymoon period is well and truly over.

[L666KOP]

Think over all they have invested a decent amount in the squad but surely the  £35-37m net is around the profit the club is making ?

Which is what they said they'd do.
Let's not forget that they 'splashed' a lot of money flattening the debts we'd run up. But I think a lot of people assume that because we 'spent' 100+million, it all came from FSGs' back pocket. Which we all know is not the case.
I just think they expected Kenny/Comolli to make better use of it.

[Zlenpasha]

Exactly. It seems all they have done is just reinvest the profit we make. An improvement on the last lot but I was expecting an initial top up of our transfer fund before becoming self sufficient. This together with stadium delay means for me the honeymoon period is well and truly over.

They never said they'll input any of their own funds, actually they said they'll raise revenue and reinvest the profits - so they are doing exactly that. Also the stadium delay might be due to other factors (council, sponsons, who knows) and I'm glad they're not blowing smoke up our asses and building castles in the sky.

So what exactly is the problem?

[rocco]

Would have and still expect FSG to add to the transfer pot for say 2/3 transfer windows and then just use the profits from the club ?

The club been self sufficient is the only way to run the club but as just said a bit more investment in the first 11 is required for 3/4 quality players ?

[L666KOP]

They never said they'll input any of their own funds, actually they said they'll raise revenue and reinvest the profits - so they are doing exactly that. Also the stadium delay might be due to other factors (council, sponsons, who knows) and I'm glad they're not blowing smoke up our asses and building castles in the sky.

So what exactly is the problem?

Ha, spot on.
I don't want silly spending. I want us to be run in an efficient manner. I'd like to know if they've actually said/implied anything that's been wide of the mark.
I bet they haven't.
And a net spend of 35ish million is obviously what they felt was sufficient.

[Bonaqua]

Exactly. It seems all they have done is just reinvest the profit we make. An improvement on the last lot but I was expecting an initial top up of our transfer fund before becoming self sufficient. This together with stadium delay means for me the honeymoon period is well and truly over.

They cleared the debt. There wouldnt be any profit to reinvest if they didnt do that. Then they pointed to FFP and living within our means.
They have done what they said they would do. No reason to complain. How the profit is reinvested is another question.

[Socrates7]

They never said they'll input any of their own funds, actually they said they'll raise revenue and reinvest the profits - so they are doing exactly that. Also the stadium delay might be due to other factors (council, sponsons, who knows) and I'm glad they're not blowing smoke up our asses and building castles in the sky.

So what exactly is the problem?

The main problem for me is the delay on the stadium. It was a pre condition that all bidders would build the stadium or increase the capacity.... I'm sure Broughton said 'non negotiable' or words to that effect. 18 months on and still no spade in the ground.

[L666KOP]

Would have and still expect FSG to add to the transfer pot for say 2/3 transfer windows and then just use the profits from the club ?

The club been self sufficient is the only way to run the club but as just said a bit more investment in the first 11 is required for 3/4 quality players ?

They might have?
Do we have a full set of accounts in the public domain for the relevant time period? I think THIS summer will be the one to judge them best, seeing as they have had a 12 month period servicing nothing more than an operating debt.

[Abrak]

Exactly. It seems all they have done is just reinvest the profit we make. An improvement on the last lot but I was expecting an initial top up of our transfer fund before becoming self sufficient. This together with stadium delay means for me the honeymoon period is well and truly over.

I hope you werent under the illusion that LFC went nearly went bust while making a profit. The last two years reported results showed a loss before tax and the last 3 years loss ballooned to 50m a year once interest payments through Kop Holdings were included. The next set of results will also show a whopping loss although offset somewhat by the large non-cash profit on the sale of Torres of over 40m.

[Socrates7]

I hope you werent under the illusion that LFC went nearly went bust while making a profit. The last two years reported results showed a loss before tax and the last 3 years loss ballooned to 50m a year once interest payments through Kop Holdings were included. The next set of results will also show a whopping loss although offset somewhat by the large non-cash profit on the sale of Torres of over 40m.

Really ? I had no idea... I though hicks was the second coming of Christ. I've said already FSG are an improvement on the cancers. I was just expecting a little more from our new owners... at the very least movement on the stadium.

[Zlenpasha]

The main problem for me is the delay on the stadium. It was a pre condition that all bidders would build the stadium or increase the capacity.... I'm sure Broughton said 'non negotiable' or words to that effect. 18 months on and still no spade in the ground.

Who really knows what is going on with that.
FSG are very determined to make us self-sufficient and efficient and going gung-ho into a major investement that will define club's future is not what I'd expect. Year, two, three it makes no difference really because the solution needs to be the right one otherwise we're probably fucked for decades. If the road to the solution appears closed then be tactical about it and try to inch your way towards the desired goal. All I'm saying is I'd be more worried if they swiftly came out with some unreasonable/halfbaked solution then I am waiting for the announcement.

[Il Capitano]

I hope you werent under the illusion that LFC went nearly went bust while making a profit. The last two years reported results showed a loss before tax and the last 3 years loss ballooned to 50m a year once interest payments through Kop Holdings were included. The next set of results will also show a whopping loss although offset somewhat by the large non-cash profit on the sale of Torres of over 40m.

The dreaded interest payments. Fucking hell, that was a terrifying time.

[Peter McGurk]

A press room full of Reds, all hinting that questions ought to be asked. But no, it's lazy journalism and they're rustling up lazy fiction out of thin air.

No smoke without fire eh?

Yes, it is lazy. It’s lazy because it doesn’t dig any deeper and what it presents is faηile at best or 2 plus 2 equals 5 at worst. All it says is, is that on the face of it, there’s a problem. Lazy.

I also have to say that the presumption towards a new stadium is either short for "bigger capacity, whether it be a new stadium or redevelopment" or that is lazy too.

***

‘Supporting development’ used to be dirty words at this club and in truth that has only changed slightly. But really, there may be good commercial reasons for the club to diversify into other areas (and perhaps even the immediate opportunity - the Football Quarter, for example).

City have ‘engaged’ in the local community in Eastlands but the Etihad Campus is essentially a separate commercial enterprise. If this is permissible under FFP rules and the aim of FFP is to contain the runaway cost of the game, then maybe the rules should change.

On the other hand, if supporting the fans’ involvement in the game with cheaper prices is the aim, then perhaps ‘subsidy’ from this or Fantasy Islands is a good thing (albeit we will have to continue to accept the preciousness of your average PL player).

But.

But, the danger is of course that it is unsustainable or rather, even more unsustainable than it is now.

***

Abramovitch couldn’t give a monkey’s. He’s got it. He’ll spend it. This one’s broke - get me another. As long as I’m here, no problem. He may have very ‘good’ reasons to be here. Some of them may be football. But have you ever seen anyone so apparently disinterested? No matter...

To my mind City may have done this all rather more sanely than Abramovitch (if still at extravagant cost). City have built up the brand by pumping millions (millions they happen to have lying around apparently) into players. They have then exploited the brand to commercial property effect in East Manchester.

Perhaps Eastlands is sustainable as property goes but, is there really a sustainable return on the football side? If not, you would have to ask, which is supporting which? They may even come a time when football is the sideshow but in the meantime the effect on the neighbours is devastating.

***

Because, as the super clubs suck in all the sponsorships, TV income, merchandising and good players - hoover up all the Messis - what will the ‘others’ do? Those without buckets of cash? Go ‘Rangers’ or ‘Portsmouth’? Just trying to keep up?

So what then for the Super Clubs?

If as Evans says "the superclubs will see no point in playing anyone other than each other", exactly who will Man City and Chelsea play against? Barcelona and Real Madrid? over and over and over and over... South American super clubs? which are they exactly? Asian clubs? African clubs? St Etienne? It’s a damn short list.

***

Like it or lump it, FSG are here because of FFP. They came because a level playing field was coming. The fight to make it happen won’t be clean. And to the extent of his influence, Evans isn’t helping the cause.

If Evans’ armageddon comes about, FSG may say, well this isn’t the deal. We won’t no part of it or, they may have a massive change of heart and take it on.

And.

And one day, someone somewhere (in some cases, some bank?) says to us or one of these guys, ‘hey! where’s my money?!!’. Been there. Done that.

***

On the other, other hand FSG are doing what they said they would. They spend from revenue. They do not throw cash around like no tomorrow. They explore all avenues of revenue. They are prudent and we will be great. Honeymoon still on.

.

[BostonScouse]

Bostonscouse - how do you know what he/they have to back these stories and editorial pieces up?

Another Times employee, Rory Smith, was last night vocally calling Commolli's role into question. What did he have to back his view up? Ben Smith and Olly Kay have a clear view of the scale and nature of investment in the summer. What did they know to back that up?

A press room full of Reds, all hinting that questions ought to be asked. But no, it's lazy journalism and they're rustling up lazy fiction out of thin air.

I'm personally glad some of them are calling FSG into question.

If they were intelligent questions then I'd agree, but he makes a vague panic-ridden argument about the dire future of football and then tries to link it to this murky picture of LFC's on the field failings this season. The appeal to authority of "a press room full of Reds" all hinting at this or that isn't very compelling to me, in fact it means fuck all at a time when the club has had disappointing results and people are wanting to point fingers (aimlessly it appears.). He's making an argument, as another poster said, a predictive one. I kind of expect there to be facts to back it up, or at least logical consistency.

Does he want sugar daddy owners or responsible ones? Does he think it's "financial [in]sanity" what these super clubs are doing or a shrewd business plan aimed at building a football cartel? What exactly do FSG have to do with selecting players is he suggesting they are in control of it or have nothing to do with it or what? are they reinvesting too little or spending too much to make a splash on players like Carroll? There's no cogent portrait being painted to reflect his concerns, it's just ambiguous complaints. And he makes a lot of assertions that seem like they should be supported by facts but aren't. To be honest I don't really see a novel or thoughtful critique anywhere in there, what questions is he asking of them exactly?

I mean look at the title ffs:

Real Madrid’s sense of adventure not matched by John W. Henry

Might as well have said "Anfield Not To Blossom into Dubai Anytime Soon"

[Peter McGurk]

Really ? I had no idea... I though hicks was the second coming of Christ. I've said already FSG are an improvement on the cancers. I was just expecting a little more from our new owners... at the very least movement on the stadium.

No matter your expectations or anyone else's, they do not match FSG stated intent. They will 'spend from revenue'. They will take time to assess the stadium. They hope it will be soon but they will not tie themselves down with a 'when'.

Based on absolutely nothing concrete whatsoever, I should say they looked at a new stadium very seriously at the outset and 'rapidly' came to the conclusion that it doesn't work - another problem H&G left them with.

.

[djschembri]

says whom?  can you produce quotes from someone involved with FSG which suggest they wanted "a young manager who fitted in with the DOF system"?  to me that just seems like your perception of what they'd have wanted, unless there are some quotes about.  but i think you're putting words in people's mouths.

Just because there weren't quotes doesn't mean its not true.

[TipTopKop]

Bostonscouse - how do you know what he/they have to back these stories and editorial pieces up?

Another Times employee, Rory Smith, was last night vocally calling Commolli's role into question. What did he have to back his view up? Ben Smith and Olly Kay have a clear view of the scale and nature of investment in the summer. What did they know to back that up?

A press room full of Reds, all hinting that questions ought to be asked. But no, it's lazy journalism and they're rustling up lazy fiction out of thin air.

I'm personally glad some of them are calling FSG into question.

Totally agree, Roy.

[royhendo]

...

You acknowledge there's a valid point in the piece though - that at some stage it becomes the "that wasn't the deal" stage for FSG unless they take decisive action. 

Henry said as much himself - without the right building blocks in place it becomes a race to lose the most money. 

This is something that Evans raised on the morning after the Carling Cup Final of course. And of course the furrowed brows aren't restricted to that paper, either. 

It's up to all of us to choose whether we dismiss things out of hand, but some are digging and watching and second guessing everything. It's become a habit for them and I admire that a lot. 

[Tepid water]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the next accounts showed a profit.  They probably won't, but it wouldn't surprise me.


The reason?

We got £50m cash for Torres.  This was a one off payment, not staggered.

We paid £35m cash for Carroll, but this leaves us £15m up.

All our other purchases will have been amortized, ie spread over 2/3 years.

Now, this isn't unusual, but what is unusual is that we have so little in outstanding amortized fees to pay as in the hicks and Gillette era we hardly signed anyone for two years.

Lies, damn lies and accountancy!

(mind you the club did say they may have to write off the £50m in new stadium "assets" from the old regime..

[BostonScouse]

You acknowledge there's a valid point in the piece though - that at some stage it becomes the "that wasn't the deal" stage for FSG unless they take decisive action.

Henry said as much himself - without the right building blocks in place it becomes a race to lose the most money.

This is something that Evans raised on the morning after the Carling Cup Final of course. And of course the furrowed brows aren't restricted to that paper, either.

It's up to all of us to choose whether we dismiss things out of hand, but some are digging and watching and second guessing everything. It's become a habit for them and I admire that a lot.

When FSG first took over they repeatedly lauded Arsenal's model, they had to back off that rhetoric when Arsenal went in the tank for a minute and Wenger was under fire, but imo that is what they consider to be the standard for the club being competitive and viable long term.

Of course FFP is huge for them and a big equalizer if it's enforced so they'll harp on it and push it as much as they can. But I see no evidence for the theory that it's a deal breaker and have to think it's a little naive to believe that they came in 100% depending on it without realistic expectations and contingencies.

I simply don't understand what the vigilance is that's being praised here, when there really isn't anything beyond them not having sorted the stadium out yet and Kenny/Commolli's poor signings to point at.

[Peter McGurk]

You acknowledge there's a valid point in the piece though - that at some stage it becomes the "that wasn't the deal" stage for FSG unless they take decisive action.

Henry said as much himself - without the right building blocks in place it becomes a race to lose the most money.

This is something that Evans raised on the morning after the Carling Cup Final of course. And of course the furrowed brows aren't restricted to that paper, either.

It's up to all of us to choose whether we dismiss things out of hand, but some are digging and watching and second guessing everything. It's become a habit for them and I admire that a lot.

No. The point (which is not in the piece) is that any gain from this whole extravagance does not make this version of the game of football any more sustainable and damages the game as a whole.

On the other hand these 'offshoots' could become the main deal. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sam-wallace-madrid-fantasy-island-brings-dystopian-satire-into-the-real-world-7584855.html.

Yes. People can dig. My point was, that Evans has done no digging.

.

[hugoboss]

Think over all they have invested a decent amount in the squad but surely the  £35-37m net is around the profit the club is making ?

If that is the clubs profit ( I suspect it is) I'd be really happy to know we have a good base to start working with, the new sponsorship deal and a few more could see us being able to spend a net of 40M every season which is very good IMO

[gaijin_lfc]

That Tony Evans article is awful. Poor journalism at it's poorest.

The owners deserve more time before you all turn on them.

They were never going to follow the Sheikh/sugardaddy model and it may take years to see the real fruits of their investment; something Torres mentioned in an interview after leaving Liverpool is that he was told the long term goal of the owners and realized that he wasn't going to be a part of it. This should be a clear sign that the owners are long haul and not short term oriented.

This is one of those things where people are just searching for someone to blame when things don't go right on the pitch, and try to create controversy out of something that isn't really controversial. Attempt to learn how things went down with hiring Kenny, buying Carroll, and all the other things that are seen as mistakes – it doesn't change the fact that you know very little to base judgments off of, and if you just sit back and be patient, you may eventually get what you're asking for.

[skidz73]

Just because there weren't quotes doesn't mean its not true.

Did you really just type that?

[Abrak]

When FSG first took over they repeatedly lauded Arsenal's model, they had to back off that rhetoric when Arsenal went in the tank for a minute and Wenger was under fire, but imo that is what they consider to be the standard for the club being competitive and viable long term.

Of course FFP is huge for them and a big equalizer if it's enforced so they'll harp on it and push it as much as they can. But I see no evidence for the theory that it's a deal breaker and have to think it's a little naive to believe that they came in 100% depending on it without realistic expectations and contingencies.

I simply don't understand what the vigilance is that's being praised here, when there really isn't anything beyond them not having sorted the stadium out yet and Kenny/Commolli's poor signings to point at.

Well I am sort of with Roy here. For a start, it is Henry who coined the phrase 'race to losses' to refer to Chelsea and City's maximum spending led model to win the Premiership. Secondly, Arsenal's profit model is exactly that. They have chosen to preserve cash flows and limit spending at the expense of winning the Premiership.

Given that it is FSG's stated goal to win the Premiership, I doubt that they would be in interested if they knew they could only win it by racking up huge losses nor would they be particularly interested in breaking even and failing to win continually.

I am slightly confused though what exactly is Roy's point. If FFP fails to be effective and it renders FSG's 'rational' for their investment worthless, I see no reason to be suspicious of their intentions. In fact I find it difficult to understand why anyone would wish to own the club in a 'race to losses'. It is an incredibly stupid meaningless game.

[Peter McGurk]

Well I am sort of with Roy here. For a start, it is Henry who coined the phrase 'race to losses' to refer to Chelsea and City's maximum spending led model to win the Premiership. Secondly, Arsenal's profit model is exactly that. They have chosen to preserve cash flows and limit spending at the expense of winning the Premiership.

Given that it is FSG's stated goal to win the Premiership, I doubt that they would be in interested if they knew they could only win it by racking up huge losses nor would they be particularly interested in breaking even and failing to win continually.

I am slightly confused though what exactly is Roy's point. If FFP fails to be effective and it renders FSG's 'rational' for their investment worthless, I see no reason to be suspicious of their intentions. In fact I find it difficult to understand why anyone would wish to own the club in a 'race to losses'. It is an incredibly stupid meaningless game.

It seems to me that FFP rules should not be as static as they have seemed to be. Like tax, there's clever people out there more than ready to find ways of avoiding it. Like tax, FFP should move with the times.

.

[JCM]

Here's a little list I've kept since the takeover.  Its not scientific, just things or developements that Iv'e jotted down to keep track of their performance.  So here goes.....

LFC page on NESN Website
Tom Werner - Chairman
5 Man Board appointed
3 x academies opened - N. Ireland, Norway, Greece
New Scout - Steve Hitchin
Hodgson sacked
Dalglish appointed
Steve Clarke appointed 5 scouts leave club
New social networking site on LFC.TV
LFC Supporters Committee launched
Cristian Purslow leaves
NESN broadcast LFC games
Season ticket list sorted and made available to fans
Ian Ayre promoted
Comoli promoted
New FSG Website
LeBron James buys stake in the club
Pre-season tour of Asia
New scout - Mel Johnson
Standard Chartered clinic in Korea
Record sales of new away shirt
Ticket price rise of 6.5%
Harlequin Resorts sets up LFC soccer school
LeBron begins to promote LFC
Honda is official partner
LFC takes part in Nextgen
New Asia tour website
Dale appointed - sales manager
Liverpool V Valencia - Anfield
2,000 season tickets now available
Kevin Keen appointed (coach)
Parkinson - Operations Director appointed
Bartlett - CO of marketing appointed
Live coverage expanded on LFC.TV
Scouting network created in China
LFC launches Weiba in China
LeBron tours China & Asia
5 x soccer schools launched in India
£17 million off the wage bill
£34 million less in debt repayment
Nextgen televised on LFC.TV
NESN increases LFC coverage
LFC launches school in Mumbai
Partnership with Liverpool University
Partnership with Park Inn Radison Hotels
LeBron at Anfield
Liverpool V Rangers
Partnership with Stanley Black & Decker
OPta stats available on LFC.TV
LFC.TV now on utube
Partnership with Turkish Tourism
Soccer clinic in Mumbai
Boot Room Cafe - Cheshire Oaks opened
LFC on NESN Google Plus
Partnership with Konica Minolta
Soccer academies opened in Cairo, Denmark, Sweden, Cyprus, Indonesia, Texas & Ireland
3K Battery partnership
Thomas Cook deal extended
Tesco Clubcard deal announced
LFC tumblr
New FSG Video (10 years)
NESN soccer page on facebook
LFC on pinterst
Warrior deal secured 
USA Tour - Boston / Baltimore

As I say, not scientific - but you have to say thay have been fairly 'active'.  Just need some news on the stadium.

 

[Vulmea]

I'm a bit bemused by the Tony Evans piece or the smoke filled backroom ponderings of journo's questioning FSG - what exactly are they questioning or digging for?

If we are to live within our means then we are disadvantaged against those who dont?

That we wont be 'investing' money we dont have in the hope of earning returns we can't guarantee?

If we make mistakes, we pay for them, rather than throw more money at it hoping to rectify it?

I despise the way the game is going - unless that is addressed then for me there is no point to the game - if money is the only determinant its no longer a sport - personally I'd prefer a club I can associate with playing in the conference rather than one I can't winning the football world series against a bunch of big city franchises - I support LFC for my own reasons not because I want to win the money cup and compare bank accounts. We've allowed the game to be corrupted by big business, we've allowed it to become a plutocracy.

Two fa cup semi's one at 12-30 on a saturday with two Liverpool clubs, played at wembley , the other at 6pm on a sunday between two London clubs - a travesty - and the FA say all parties were consulted - what all parties except the fans presumably?

If Tony wants to rail against something it should be the way football is being turned into a travesty of what it stood for not   whining that Liverpool aren't part of that shit.

[Teddy Ted Ted Anfield Ed]

Tony Evans is a twat.

[redtel]

I'm a bit bemused by the Tony Evans piece or the smoke filled backroom ponderings of journo's questioning FSG - what exactly are they questioning or digging for?

If we are to live within our means then we are disadvantaged against those who dont?

That we wont be 'investing' money we dont have in the hope of earning returns we can't guarantee?

If we make mistakes, we pay for them, rather than throw more money at it hoping to rectify it?

I despise the way the game is going - unless that is addressed then for me there is no point to the game - if money is the only determinant its no longer a sport - personally I'd prefer a club I can associate with playing in the conference rather than one I can't winning the football world series against a bunch of big city franchises - I support LFC for my own reasons not because I want to win the money cup and compare bank accounts. We've allowed the game to be corrupted by big business, we've allowed it to become a plutocracy.

Two fa cup semi's one at 12-30 on a saturday with two Liverpool clubs, played at wembley , the other at 6pm on a sunday between two London clubs - a travesty - and the FA say all parties were consulted - what all parties except the fans presumably?

If Tony wants to rail against something it should be the way football is being turned into a travesty of what it stood for not   whining that Liverpool aren't part of that shit.

I agree with all of that.

I'm amazed LFC fans take any notice of what journalists say in relation to our club, Evans included after their performance over the last 6 months. We could do a better job of appraising FSG. As the long list above shows they are not unactive.

The journalists could do an investigative piece on FSG if they wanted but those questions are just half arsed which is predictable. We will learn more on here as will become apparent in the fullness of time.

[royhendo]

At the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe.

Smoke filled back rooms - has it ever struck anyone that maybe sometimes they're out working contacts, following leads, phoning people to ask difficult questions, and doing what journalists are supposed to do? If there's the slimmest possibility of that, radars on here should be twitching, should they not?

Evidently not. Enjoy the ongoing honeymoon dudes!

[shelovesyou]

Here's a little list I've kept since the takeover.  Its not scientific, just things or developements that Iv'e jotted down to keep track of their performance.  So here goes.....


As I say, not scientific - but you have to say thay have been fairly 'active'.  Just need some news on the stadium.

 

Well done mate, thats good to keep a record. Think Bartlett has left now, plus there is news on the Stadium......

















Theyre going to put 2 Big Screens in Anfield.

[RedinExile]

I despise the way the game is going - unless that is addressed then for me there is no point to the game - if money is the only determinant its no longer a sport - personally I'd prefer a club I can associate with playing in the conference rather than one I can't winning the football world series against a bunch of big city franchises - I support LFC for my own reasons not because I want to win the money cup and compare bank accounts. We've allowed the game to be corrupted by big business, we've allowed it to become a plutocracy.

Truth be told money has always been important, we just weren't that arsed when we were the club routinely breaking the transfer fees; bit rich to moan now we aren't the wealthiest folks in town (especially as the club is mostly responsible for its own relative demise). More precisely, it's the margins that have increased; in the past, perhaps footy was more like the Grand National with the favourites in and around the winners, but with an outsider certainly having a chance. Now the top flight is more like a Grade one race, where only the favourites will ever win, and so any slight mistakes amongst them - because the margins have become so magnified - become crucial. Therefore, imagine if you had started to build a platform and were getting into CL Finals and came a close second in the PL, you may think rather than binning that whole enterprise off it was worth sticking with. In a long list of shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot fuck-ups in recent years, that must be pretty near the top. FSG may prove to earn their place on that list in the future, they certainly aren't on it now.

Two fa cup semi's one at 12-30 on a saturday with two Liverpool clubs, played at wembley , the other at 6pm on a sunday between two London clubs - a travesty - and the FA say all parties were consulted - what all parties except the fans presumably?

In what age gone by did the fans ever get consulted? As soon as the Wembley bill came in it was obvious what the ramifications would be sadly.

[Bob Loblaw]

Think it's fine that these questions are being asked, even if yeah, there's really nothing in those articles, at all, powderpuff pieces. Vulmea and Bostonscouse have summed it up best.

If we spend the £30m-ish nett then we're doing okay if we spend that money intelligently imo. So  cautiously optimistic. We'll have our answers over the next few months anyway.

Always drama.

[RedinExile]

At the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe.

Smoke filled back rooms - has it ever struck anyone that maybe sometimes they're out working contacts, following leads, phoning people to ask difficult questions, and doing what journalists are supposed to do? If there's the slimmest possibility of that, radars on here should be twitching, should they not?

Evidently not. Enjoy the ongoing honeymoon dudes!

I don't think it's people being naive/ostriches and not wanting to do some digging, it's more that a) there doesn't appear to be much to dig for (at this stage anyway), mostly speculation in that piece and b) there are much more obvious problems stinking away right under our noses in terms of poor performances.

[rafathegaffa83]

The main problem for me is the delay on the stadium. It was a pre condition that all bidders would build the stadium or increase the capacity.... I'm sure Broughton said 'non negotiable' or words to that effect. 18 months on and still no spade in the ground.

18 months on is nothing for a project of this magnitude. What about the decade plus that this saga has gone for with three different ownership groups? If anything that is driving the current hysteria over this. To be fair to FSG when they took over the Red Sox in 2002, there was extensive talk of renovating or moving away from Fenway Park. The previous Red Sox owners had ideas about demolishing part of Fenway and re-building on the same site with designs in place. Notably, a big roadblock that both the previous Red Sox owners and FSG came into was problems reaching an agreement with the city of Boston on a new stadium and grassroots organizations who didn't want the team to leave Fenway. In 2005, three years after buying the team and exploring every option, FSG felt it was best to simply renovate Fenway Park. Building a stadium is a complicated process that takes time and involves engaging with plenty of bureaucratic and local organizations. I'm sure this is happening with us. I'd rather they get the stadium right the first time, rather than rushing into a decision that costs the club millions in the long-term and ends up appeasing neither the club nor the community.