I think one thing to think about with regards to FSG is how investment in sport happens in the USA which will naturally affect their views on Liverpool. Most of the sports in the USA are actually more socialist than European sports. There is a salary cap, a limit on wages, and teams that go over that are penalized by a tax that is spread around the rest of the teams. The teams are franchises, rather than necessarily rooted in a city. The Wimbledon to Milton Keynes scenario happens frequently. Therefore cities are extremely helpful and accommodating with regards to planning and stadiums. Cities build brand new stadiums to convince teams to come to their cities. The exceptions to the salary cap are actually baseball and NASCAR, the sports in which FSG are involved.
The thing is, almost all the teams in American sports operate at a loss. Each year the teams spend more money than they receive. But there is competition by really rich people to buy sports teams. They don't all do this for fun, and most of them want to make money. How do they make money? By increasing the worth of the asset. The worth of sports teams in the USA has gone up rapidly over the last few decades, until this last downturn. Buy a team for $200 million, lose $10 million a year for a decade, sell it for $400 million and make $100 million.
FSG identified Liverpool as an under-valued asset with great potential to grow. They bought the club for something like 300 million pounds when the club had been valued the year before at around 500 million pounds by Forbes. They bought the club in a major recession, expected to be able to improve Anfield in capacity and attractiveness, knew that the commercial side was under-utilized, that the club was out of the Champions League but had a good chance of getting back to that point. The plan of the owners is to make Liverpool the most attractive asset possible.
This plan may sound terribly cynical and frightening to someone who loves their club and just wants to win. But what makes a great asset in football? A sparkling stadium that makes money. A club that is internationally know for success. A club that maximizes available income. A club with a fanatically loyal fanbase. A club that operates within its means. All of those things are fantastic for the club too.
FSG have said that every penny the club makes will be put back into the club. Without the plan for increasing the asset, assuming FSG want to make money, that makes zero sense. But if you want to increase the worth of the asset it makes complete sense. FSG are looking at the stadium and know they MUST find a solution. They know that they MUST get back into the Champions League pretty quickly, even if that means losing money in the short term. They know they MUST increase commercial revenue (and are doing it). They know they MUST control costs (and are doing it). The know they MUST please the fanbase.
However, FSG know that it would be idiotic to sell the club in a recession, out of the Champions League, with wages out of control, and without a better stadium. So they are in this for at least five years, at the very, very minimum, and without meeting at least most of their goals they won't make money.
FSG are going to make available to the club at least the yearly profits to improve the team. They will invest in younger, cheaper players and remove older and more expensive players. They will expand Anfield. They will try everything they can to get back into the Champions league. Henry is know for sticking to long term plans even when it seems they have gone badly, and has been very successful doing so. I'll be very surprised if in the next 3 years there isn't a sparkling new stadium with a young, talented team, playing in the Champions League, even if it doesn't look like it now. Because that is good business.
