Topic: FSG: A Review

[Grobbelrevell]

After seeing and hearing an increasing number of overtly negative opinions on our current owners I felt compelled to attempt to put together a balanced review of their time at the club to this point. Mods, if you feel that this is better added to an existing thread them please merge.

FSG: A Review

On the 15th of October 2010 Fenway Sports Group (then New England Sporting Ventures) completed the purchase of Liverpool Football Club in a deal valued at around £224million amid scenes of jubilation from anyone with an affinity with the red half of Merseyside. After what felt like an eternity of protests, boycotts and infighting, as talk of team selections and tactics were replaced by forensic assessment of balance sheets and a healthy dose of internet terrorism, suddenly it felt as though the clouds had parted. The gut wrenching prospect of administration had been removed and replaced by hope. Hope that civil war had been replaced by unity, that promises would be kept and transparency would ultimately reign. But above all that the football club could once again focus on being the best that it could possibly be and that we as supporters could return to simply loving the game again.

One of the lasting legacies of the Hicks and Gillett era (and arguably the only positive) can be found within the minds of the supporters and that is made up primarily of a now deep rooted cynicism, or rather, the perceived – and understandable – need to be forever vigilant. From this point on it would take more than just words to make us believe. Wealthy businessmen waving wads of dollars whilst making promises of spades in the ground within sixty days and the imminent arrival of ‘Snoogy Doogy’ will simply no longer wash. Any new owner will be critiqued against their own declarations and held to account where necessary, which is a role that continues to be headed up brilliantly by the likes of Spirit of Shankly.

What I have begun to notice occurring increasingly frequently though - particularly in the aftermath of Dalglish’ departure - is an incredibly negative and often sensationalist viewpoint on FSG based almost entirely on speculation. Whilst remaining vigilant and holding any ownership to account is right and sensible it should also be both objective and realistic. As hinted at above I would argue that the starting point upon which FSG should be held accountable would be in line with their opening statements when purchasing the club.

If we begin with these opening declarations then, upon completion of the takeover principle owner John Henry stated that:

“On behalf of the entire NESV partnership, I want to express how incredibly proud and humbled we are to be confirmed as the new owners of Liverpool FC. We regard our role as that of stewards for the Club with a primary focus on returning the Club to greatness on and off the field for the long-term. We are committed first and foremost to winning. We have a history of winning, and today we want LFC supporters to know that this approach is what we intend to bring to this great Club.”

Newly appointed club chairman Tom Werner added:

“We recognize that Liverpool Football Club is an historic institution ultimately grounded in the community and the fans. Our first step as new owners will be to listen. We want to hear from the Manager and the players and those who are part of the daily operation of the Club. We will be visible at Anfield and will embrace and listen to those who have stood by this Club and who are the rock on which its future success will be built. We want to hear from the fans, local leaders and the local community. We want to hear from those who know LFC best, who have made it the best and share our desire to return to a culture of winning.

“NESV is committed to creating a long-term, financially strong foundation for the Club and dedicated to ensuring the Club has the financial resources to be successful again and attract the best players. To that end, the transaction has been structured in such a way as to eliminate all of the acquisition debt on the Club.

“In the coming days and months, NESV will work closely with the LFC executive team to listen and learn about every facet of the organization. During this time, the new owners will begin to look at areas for greatest opportunity to increase the appeal of the Club nationally and internationally. NESV wants to once again create a culture and environment to allow people to excel at the Club on every front. During this period, NESV will also begin to examine opportunities to enhance the matchday experience in the short-term, while also carefully studying the various long-term options that may be possible.”

As opening statements are concerned these highlight if anything, the PR savvy nature of Messrs Henry and Werner. They are very careful to avoid making specific promises and instead offer a generic insight into a bright new era. Even so, there are indeed promises made in there that effectively form the basis of the contract that FSG entered into (sub-consciously or otherwise) upon completion of the takeover with us, as the supporters, which were as follows:

1) To listen – to the fans, local leaders and the community

The takeover of the club by FSG signalled the beginning of a whirlwind PR campaign in what was a concerted effort to outline that, despite the matching passports, just how far removed from the previous reviled American owners they were and this was particularly highlighted in November 2010 by a number of face-to-face meetings with prominent supporter groups such as Spirit of Shankly and Share Liverpool, as well as various local leaders. Following the meetings John Henry told the BBC that they had spent the day “listening” and when asked what had been gleaned from the meetings he answered that “the biggest issue was [the fans] sense of disenfranchisement, their sense of not being a part of their own club”. He also added when asked what they planned to do to tackle this moving forward that “this was the first step”.

The implication both of this response as well as the dialogue within the meetings themselves was that this was not to be a one-off but rather the forging of what would become open lines of communication. The mood amongst the supporters at this point was understandably overwhelmingly positive. To see the ownership of the club taking steps to interact with the supporters, to listen to their concerns and hopefully carry them into the boardroom decision making process in a positive manner was a world away from what had been happening at the club previously.

In January 2011, two months after the initial meetings, the club announced plans for a Supporters Committee which it hoped would “allow fans to help shape the club’s future through regular and constructive dialogue with senior LFC officials”. The club invited applications from supporters around the world and eventually appointed an eighteen person panel which would meet four times per season, with the owners being present for at least two of those meetings. To date the committee has met four times during the 2011/12 season – as promised – with the minutes of the meetings being made available via the clubs official website.

The inception of the supporters committee supports the claim by John Henry that they would listen. Those initial meetings – as Henry alluded to – made it abundantly clear that the biggest issue was a lack of communication with the fans and the committee was subsequently formed as a result with the sole purpose of tackling that and providing each cross-section of supporters with a voice.

Despite this, one of the most common criticisms of FSG regarding this entire point has been the fact that those initial meetings with Spirit of Shankly and Share Liverpool et al have remained one-off events and that this signifies a betrayal of sorts in their failure to enact the communication lines that were promised. In a statement released by Spirit of Shankly in May 2012 they outline this viewpoint by adding that:

“[Spirit of Shankly] would also expect those charged with moving the Club forward to engage in meaningful dialogue with supporters, something promised to us in those early meetings with Mr Henry and Mr Werner, but which is yet to materialise.”

Whilst there is some justification to that view it does also need to be remembered that despite the impressive support that SoS in particular enjoys, the majority of the club’s worldwide supporter base are not members and in addition, a significant proportion also (rightly or wrongly) question the nature and ideals of such a group. With these additional factors in mind it is fair to say that a democratically elected committee, representing each facet of our spectrum of support with the sole intention of interacting directly with the club was idealistically the correct one and it should be applauded as such. FSG actually allude to this point in a response to Spirit of Shankly in January 2011:

“Many of your core questions are similar to those we receive from many fans of the club on a regular basis.  And we have made a very deliberate decision to share our thoughts and responses as widely as we can ever since we have become involved with LFC. Our view is that the club belongs to all its supporters and we want to have our views disseminated to the same wide audience.”

Perhaps FSG could and should have maintained a dialogue with existing supporter groups in addition to that, after all they clearly recognised the influence of such groups by taking the time to meet and listen to them in the first place and I personally believe that it would have been beneficial to their image if they had done so. Overall though I do feel that looking at this point objectively, it cannot be argued that at the very least they have carried out their promise to listen and have in turn taken steps to work on erasing the concerns that were evident within those initial meetings. Whether the steps taken to date are enough is debatable but as Henry pointed out these are merely the first. Hopefully they will continue moving forward allowing what is a promising concept to evolve and eventually restore the link between the club and the community, as well as the supporters at large.

2) To remove all of the acquisition debt from the club

The club accounts released on the 30th April 2012 confirm that of the £224m used to purchase the club, £200m of that was used to clear the existing debts left in place by the previous ownership, in turn reducing the annual interest burden from £18m to £3m. There remains an existing debt of £37m which was not paid off, although this debt relates to the costs incurred by the stadium project rather than the club directly and as confirmed by John Henry, these are seen as seperate entities by FSG. When quizzed on this point Henry commented:

“The simple answer is that we paid cash for LFC and left £37 million of stadium debt in place – even though there is no stadium in place – just a lot of expensive plans etc.  We view stadiums as separate from clubs.  They are separate entities.”

In addition to the stadium debt the accounts confirm that in September 2011 FSG also took out a £120m overdraft facility across three financial institutions (RBS, Barclays and Bank of America). This facility is a three year arrangement designed to be split in two, with £45m available to finance “the existing stadium project facility” and a further £75m ”available for general corporate purposes including working capital and letters of credit”. For a global organisation the size of Liverpool Football Club, this is by no means out of the ordinary.

Following the sale of the club to FSG it was confirmed by John Henry that there had been no legal obligation written into the contract of sale to ensure that future debt would not be loaded onto the club in the same way that Hicks and Gillett had previously. The reason given for this was that both Christian Purslow and Martin Broughton (MD and Chairman at the time, respectively) did not believe that such a clause would be legally enforceable. In other words, the word of FSG had been taken on trust alone. Throughout the entire sale process and subsequently however the official line on this has been consistent and unwavering, with FSG stating catagorically that “[FSG] wants to create a long-term financially solid foundation for Liverpool FC and is dedicated to ensuring that the club has the resources to build for the future, including the removal of all acquisition debt.”

They have been true to their word as far as the acquisition debt is concerned, as the accounts have confirmed and there has been nothing to date that would indicate that this policy is due to change.

3) To ensure that the club has the financial resources to attract the best players

One of the biggest issues under the ownership of Hicks and Gillett was the inability to invest the revenue generated by the club into the playing squad. Instead that revenue – both commercial and transfer related – was eaten up by the ever increasing interest burden, which left us in a position where we were continually downgrading players and regressing as a squad, subsequently falling from being Europes number one ranked club in 2009 to the eighth placed club in England within the space of three years. Following the acquisition debt being removed as part of the initial takeover this is no longer a factor, which is a significant step in the right direction.

Further to this the most common criticism of FSG on this point is a relatively modest net spend to date (around £41m), but in their defence this is an area that they have been crystal clear on from the outset, as John Henry outlined in February 2011:

“We’ve always spent money we’ve generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool, it’s up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that.”

When asked about the Financial Fair Play regulations being implemented by UEFA Henry also commented:

“For a club to be sustainable for the long-term it is essential to live within those rules. What happens when large deficit spending for a club suddenly stops? The record isn’t very good in that regard.”

Quoting Gordon Taylor on billionnaires, he adds:

“History tells you that sometimes, like butterflies, they land on one attractive resting place then move on to another. I’m asking: when it’s time for these people to move, is there a structure in place to enable their clubs to survive?”

It’s absolutely clear from everything that FSG have said that the key to striking a balance between competitiveness and sustainability in their opinion (which is the correct one in my view) is commercial revenue. In order to compete at the top end of the transfer market we will need to increase and maximise our revenue, which will then in turn be re-invested into the playing squad – and to date that is precisely what we have seen. The progress made on the commercial side of the club is highlighted with the club record sponsorship and kit deals with Standard Chartered and Warrior respectively, both representing vast financial improvements on their predecessors and the impact of these commercial improvements are also evident within the accounts as we find a minimal financial impact in relation to the loss of Champions League football with just a £1m fall in income to £184m, despite a decrease of £14m in TV and media revenue. There is undoubtedly much more to be done in this area to arrest years of neglect but the signs are certainly positive when you consider the impact that has been made within a relatively modest eighteen month period.

Whilst there is evidence of progress commercially and for that FSG deserve credit, there is also a huge question mark that remains over what is the key to the revenue aspect and in turn this entire point and that is the stadium solution. A solution that has been in the planning for over twelve years now at an ongoing cost that has seen entire stadiums built at other clubs, despite a spade thus far failing to strike dirt in anger. It needs to be recognised that this is an absolutely monumental decision in relation to the long term future of the football club and therefore it is vital that each viable option be researched as thoroughly as possible, which obviously takes time, however I do feel that this is an area whereby FSG could have communicated the process being undertaken far better than they have and if they had done so the consfusion and speculation that has occurred as a result of the information vacuum could have been avoided.

In a recent interview with The Liverpool Echo, Ian Ayre confirmed the club’s search for a naming rights partner for a new stadium was ongoing, whilst in the next sentence outlining the fact that talks with local residents around the refurbishment option also continue. In other words, we are arguably no further on in terms of deciding on a way forward than we were eighteen months ago following the takeover of the club by FSG and that is a huge disappointment.

If and when we do (finally) implement a stadium solution, coupled with the undoubted progress being made on the commercial front should see the club in a strong position financially regardless of Champions League qualification but again, the stadium solution is absolutely key and this needs to be addressed – and effectively communicated – as a priority moving forward.

4) Increase the (commercial) appeal of the club both at home and abroad

Universally recognised as the single biggest failure of the club this forms the basis of exactly why we find ourselves trailing in the wake of Manchester United commercially, despite possessing a similar (yet criminally under-utilised) global supporter base. It has also become increasingly evident from certain interviews given by senior club sources since the acquisition of the club by FSG that they see this as an area of huge potential.

In October 2011 Ian Ayre outlined the club’s (evidently controversial) desire to better utilise the global appeal of the club by seeking individual television rights:

“Personally I think the game-changer is going out and recognising our brand globally, maybe the path will be individual TV rights like they do in Spain. There are so many things moving in that particular area.”

Whilst Ayre was quickly shouted down by the majority of the Premier League clubs and therefore the re-evaluation of existing satellite television revenue looks a non-starter, there is an opportunity to be explored in relation to on-line streaming of matches and that has also been hinted at numerous times by FSG.

In May 2012 Ayre subsequently gave a further insight into the club’s imminent plans in terms of global commercial development:

“What we do very, very well commercially is deliver fantastic products across a whole range of different commercial areas and sell those very effectively in the domestic market. What we have to do next is learn – and put ourselves out there to deliver that on a more localised basis across the world.

“Take Asia as the biggest opportunity for Liverpool. If you break that down into individual markets, we have to create a solution whereby if you live in Jakarta Indonesia, you can consume almost as much.

“Obviously you can’t be at the game but you can still consume all the other level of products and services and interactions with Liverpool but you need to do that in a local language. You need to be able to shop and buy in local currency – and you want it just as fast as the guy on Merseyside.

“So we need to be creating and distributing product locally so that if you order something online in Jakarta today, you need to get it tomorrow morning and pay for it. It needs to be in the right style and size for that market and you need to be able to browse and read and consume in a local language and that’s our next big project.

“Our big step forward next year and beyond is that localisation.”

Whilst it may be somewhat galling to hear yourself being referred to as a ‘consumer’ as opposed to the “12th man” that we are subsequently marketed as, it is refreshing and indeed, promising, to see the club actively looking to pursue the huge market that exists around the world and none more so than Asia where the club have an enormous following, as the 50,000+ attendance for a training session at the Malaysian national stadium recently confirms.

Ayre is also exactly right when he states that the club need to do far more in terms of maximising retail sales opportunities and I would attribute that both domestically as well as globally and I think anyone who has attempted to purchase anything from the on-line store will back that up. This is an area that is hard to judge in the short term so we will need to be patient with this and look to assess the success (or failure) of this area of the business under FSG in the medium to long term but the right noises are certainly being made. Ian Ayre may have his detractors as a managing director, but one thing that he has proven extremely successful at in the past is in revenue generation and expansion of the club’s commercial activities so hopefully that will continue under his leadership.

And ultimately;

5) To return the club to greatness on and off the field for the long term

Again, the last two words of this final point underline the need for patience. Both on and off the field the club needs to arrest years of neglect and this will not be a short term fix but hopefully in time we will find ourselves in a position to compete with the top clubs financially as well as being self-sufficient in doing so.

Ask yourself a question, would you prefer to wait for five, perhaps even ten years to see the club on a sound financial footing with this commercial success being translated to the playing squad itself, or rather head down the Manchester City (and Chelsea) route and see your club absolutely and completely reliant on one single individual with no affinity with the club whatsoever with the constant doubt at the back of your mind as to exactly how long they plan to underwrite the future – and indeed very possibly the survival – of the club? I know which one i’d prefer and again, I have seen nothing from FSG thus far that leads me to believe that they do not have the desire and ambition to get us to that point of sustainable, long term success.

Ultimately we may have differing long term targets as supporters than they do as businessmen, but the two are also intrinsically linked. For them to succeed financially we need to succeed as a club, both on and off the field. Yes, they have made mistakes and I think they would admit as much, but they have also got a number of things right as well. We need to be patient and give them the support that is required and that we were once famous for to allow them to prove whether or not they can translate the success enjoyed at the likes of the Boston Red Sox on Merseyside. Ongoing critical assessment, but with the required objectivity and realism.

Further to the points raised thus far FSG have also attracted a host of criticism for what was perceived as a hesitation in removing Roy Hodgson, whilst subsequently being far too swift in doing exactly that to Kenny Dalglish. Whilst discussing the merit(s) of the respective decisions is not the intended point of this article, I do feel that it is worth highlighting that there is a distinction to be made between the emotional and logical aspects of both. The fact is that as a supporter of Liverpool Football Club there is a huge emotional link to Kenny Dalglish which undoubtedly affected many peoples viewpoint on the assessment of his second reign, an emotional attachment that FSG do not share. Logically there was a case to be made for either scenario being the correct one so with that in mind it is difficult and perhaps unfair to judge FSG negatively on the back of such a decision. It is also arguably a little hypocritical to to demand swift action on the one hand (Hodgson) and then chastise the very same with the other (Dalglish). Logically speaking that is, without the linked emotional element of each decision. Again, an emotional element that FSG would not have shared.

Additionally there is the ultimately failed appointment of Damien Commolli, which according to reports owed much to the advice of Billy Beane. Whilst FSG openly admitted their footballing ignorance and therefore seeking advice from those better qualified is understandable, turning to a baseball figure for advice on a key football appointment is questionable at best.

To advocate this decision slightly FSG were clinical in assessing Commolli's subsequent performance and moving forward have looked to enact a structure that they have outlined as their preference from very early on in their ownership of the club, as seen in correspondence with Spirit of Shankly in January 2011:

“We must have more than the right manager for the long‐term – we must have the best football operation in the world.  That cannot be based on any one person because if that person leaves, you must rebuild.  LFC needs stability.  LFC must have a philosophy that endures and is in the hands a group of people devoted to the Club who work together for something much larger than themselves”

In addition to this, in October 2011 John Henry was asked if the initial plan had always been to install a young manager, commenting:

“Initially it was. You want to have long-term stability in as much as the staff as possible.”

The whirlwind success of Dalglish’ first six months in charge caused what was rightly or wrongly a short term deviation from this policy, which is now being enacted as planned and ultimately whether or not these are proved to be the correct decisions for the club will not become evident in the short term so collective patience will be vital. What is also evident at this point is that these Americans are not Hicks and Gillett. They do have a plan and they intend to see it through.

To quote John Henry following the takeover of the club, what we are witnessing both on and off the field are “the first steps” of what is a long term process.

http://grobbelramble.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/fsg-a-review/

[OrangeMochaFraps]

Top post

[royhendo]

Balanced, you say?

[kiNki]

Balanced, you say?

 

[SMD]

There's a big Uruguayan elephant in the room that you seemed to have glossed over, mate.

[fatlip13]

great post
i have to give FSG the chance to show what they intend to do with the club.
1. the commercial side is in good hands really as these are sports business people and they will get us to the top in this area.
2. dialogue with the fans is a double edged sword in that you do things "the liverpool way" behind closed doors and quietly. the other fans want information on everything happening to the club. this is a balancing act and i can't say they have suceeded in this yet. are they still learning the ways of a football club.
3. the investment side will be a steady road and not a chelsea or man city project, on this they have been clear. last season has not helped.
4. the new manager shows what way they want to build the club, a way i like.

points 3 & 4 will probably only work if FFP is a real intention by UEFA that is enforceable

[Twelfth Customer]

Balanced, you say?

I presume he meant a 'counterpoint' to some of the concerns raised by others.

[SMD]

I presume he meant a 'counterpoint' to some of the concerns raised by others.

The best way to achieve equilibrium is for everyone to inch towards the middle of the seesaw rather than take turns jumping on the ends.

[Twelfth Customer]

The best way to achieve equilibrium is for everyone to inch towards the middle of the seesaw rather than take turns jumping on the ends.

But that would be awfully boring.

[Grobbelrevell]

Balanced, you say?

That was certainly the intention. Admittedly I do feel that FSG have had a hard press from certain quarters so perhaps that was evident in the tone.

The handling of the Suarez affair was an ommission admittedly, although whether that's an issue that rests squarely with FSG or the likes of Ayre, ultimately, is debatable. Delegation is not a bad thing and it is often cited as a positive aspect of club ownership if the kwners are rarely heard from, but for that to be the case then who you are delegating to is key. Is Ayre MD material? That's the question with that one I guess but again, i'd argue that it will be over the coming months and years that we'll find out one way or another.

[SMD]

But that would be awfully boring.

I think I've had enough excitement then

[Twelfth Customer]

I think I've had enough excitement then

I know what you mean mate, time for us the 'supporters' to get behind the club and the new Messiah. No more of those 'crisis club' LFC taunts...

[SMD]

I know what you mean mate, time for us the 'supporters' to get behind the club and the new Messiah. No more of those 'crisis club' LFC taunts...

That's just it, there's no messiah, there's no miracle, just graft and a plan.

[fatlip13]

I know what you mean mate, time for us the 'supporters' to get behind the club and the new Messiah. No more of those 'crisis club' LFC taunts...

this would be a nice change, we have had about 6 years of some "crisis" or other, team investment, new owners, manager being replaced, stadium, owners, debt, owners, selling players, owners, administration, liquidation, manager sacked, new manager, new owners, manager sacked, return of the king, stadium, league form, king sacked, new manager, owners.

i have missed stuff and put it in the wrong order but you get the idea

[rola]

I'd like us to get to a state where the owners didn't get a mention and didn't say anything. Too much off field stuff has taken the focus away from where it should be - on the pitch.

[Grobbelrevell]

I'd like us to get to a state where the owners didn't get a mention and didn't say anything.

But some would raise concerns with that, which leaves a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario.

Personally I think effective communication with the supporters is vital and steps have been taken to address that. It's arguably not gone far enough to this point but it's a start. As far as the wider (external) media is concerned I probably agree with you, which is where Jen Chang might hopefully cone in and fill the void that was evident previously. A bit less Ayre too, would be a bonus.

[royhendo]

I think it's fine to just be honest and say you're for them, and that the post is supportive throughout. There's no shame in it.

You set your stall out in the first sentence.

After seeing and hearing an increasing number of overtly negative opinions...

Anyway, it's a good post and for me, although I'm not sure how they got there, they've somehow made a very interesting managerial appointment. Hopefully in 2 or 3 years we'll all be lauding them to the rooftops. A lot of folk already are and they're entitled to their opinions. A lot aren't, for various reasons, and they are too.

[soxfan]

I'm going to shock everyone here by saying a couple of negative things about FSG. 

**watches everyone faint**

I do think the OP wrote a great post and I agree with the majority of it. But in fairness, I think they needed to take more responsibility during the Suarez/Evra saga and truly failed at that.  We'll never know what was going on behind the scenes, but when we saw Dalglish and Ayre not being able to stem the negative tide, Henry & Werner needed to step in and make a public statement both supporting our player and manager while also keeping the jackals off us with some good PR. They didn't. The club took a big negative hit as a result.

Also, while I don't agree with SOS's recent open letter following Kenny's departure, it is true that the Supporter's Committee that Henry devised hasn't (at least publicly) seemed to be very active and/or taken more seriously by the club. We'll likely never have partial fan ownership under FSG, but I can see how important supporter dialogue is to many of you and the club should improve that.

Now back to my usual spin  ... they've been right 80% of the time with the Red Sox and Roush Racing, and I continue to have faith that 5 years from now they'll still be here and the majority of you will be happy with them.     

[Grobbelrevell]

...they've been right 80% of the time with the Red Sox and Roush Racing...

But to comment on this in relation to an aspect that I should've included initially (and may well edit in), they are not aware of football in the same way that they (understandably) are with American sports, which have been their core business prior to Liverpool. They've admitted as much themselves and evidence can be seen in the ultimately failed appointment of Commolli which, according to reports, owed much to the advice of Billy Beane and i'm not convinced that taking football advice from a baseball figure is advisable.

In fairness to FSG they acted clinically in assessing Commolli's performance and have now looked to implement a structure that they had planned from the start. Again, there's a big question over who has been advising them this time but whoever that may be and however the end result was found it does seem, on the face of it at least, to make sense in relation to their public criteria in terms of management going forward.

To answer Roy as well, first of all I appreciate the feedback. I wouldn't say i'm 'for' FSG per se, but I do apply an 'opt out' rather than 'opt in' support for them (and anyone) and to date i've seen nothing beyond arguably understandable errors in judgement to make me believe that they're not here to succeed long term, which is what we all want. Patience is vital and I do feel that it's not been evidemt from some quarters to date. That was what fuelled my initial post so there was an undercurrent of looking to outline where I believed the need for patience is justified.

[soxfan]

But to comment on this in relation to an aspect that I should've included initially (and may well edit in), they are not aware of football in the same way that they (understandably) are with American sports, which have been their core business prior to Liverpool.

That is a very important to make, and I agree with it.

I think people sometimes misinterpret my (and others) pro-FSG position to mean "they know baseball and have succeeded, therefore they will know football and succeed". That's not exactly what I mean though. The real success formula for any football club, and I think everyone can agree, is:

A) Owners' business savvy + B) Owners' football savvy + C) Owners' desire to win = LFC success

I believe they have A + C. I agree they need to find others to supply B. I think my difference of opinion with a lot of people here is that I truly do believe Henry & Werner want to win titles here (C) while the skeptics instead think they're here to build us up financially and then sell us and make a huge profit.

Good conversation, Grobbelrevell. 

[Bonaqua]

They sacked Kenny. I'll never forgive them for that. Other then that theres not so much to blame them for really. Evra/Suarez? Maybe. Maybe not. I dont know.
We could do lot worse then FSG. And probably not so much better.

[Gnurglan]

Further to this the most common criticism of FSG on this point is a relatively modest net spend to date (around £41m), but in their defence this is an area that they have been crystal clear on from the outset, as John Henry outlined in February 2011:

“We’ve always spent money we’ve generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool, it’s up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that.”

This is a good strategy. I like it. And I don't think they have been tight with money for transfers.

5) To return the club to greatness on and off the field for the long term

Again, the last two words of this final point underline the need for patience. Both on and off the field the club needs to arrest years of neglect and this will not be a short term fix but hopefully in time we will find ourselves in a position to compete with the top clubs financially as well as being self-sufficient in doing so.

Ask yourself a question, would you prefer to wait for five, perhaps even ten years to see the club on a sound financial footing with this commercial success being translated to the playing squad itself, or rather head down the Manchester City (and Chelsea) route and see your club absolutely and completely reliant on one single individual with no affinity with the club whatsoever with the constant doubt at the back of your mind as to exactly how long they plan to underwrite the future – and indeed very possibly the survival – of the club? I know which one i’d prefer and again, I have seen nothing from FSG thus far that leads me to believe that they do not have the desire and ambition to get us to that point of sustainable, long term success.

Not convinced. The long term thing is all well. I credit them for giving the club financial stability. As for giving them time, they are the ones setting aggressive targets. And I'd expect any club this big to have a long term vision, but it shouldn't interfere with the short term.

Further to the points raised thus far FSG have also attracted a host of criticism for what was perceived as a hesitation in removing Roy Hodgson, whilst subsequently being far too swift in doing exactly that to Kenny Dalglish. Whilst discussing the merit(s) of the respective decisions is not the intended point of this article, I do feel that it is worth highlighting that there is a distinction to be made between the emotional and logical aspects of both. The fact is that as a supporter of Liverpool Football Club there is a huge emotional link to Kenny Dalglish which undoubtedly affected many peoples viewpoint on the assessment of his second reign, an emotional attachment that FSG do not share. Logically there was a case to be made for either scenario being the correct one so with that in mind it is difficult and perhaps unfair to judge FSG negatively on the back of such a decision. It is also arguably a little hypocritical to to demand swift action on the one hand (Hodgson) and then chastise the very same with the other (Dalglish). Logically speaking that is, without the linked emotional element of each decision. Again, an emotional element that FSG would not have shared.

Additionally there is the ultimately failed appointment of Damien Commolli, which according to reports owed much to the advice of Billy Beane. Whilst FSG openly admitted their footballing ignorance and therefore seeking advice from those better qualified is understandable, turning to a baseball figure for advice on a key football appointment is questionable at best.

There's a big difference between sacking Hodgson (who wasn't theire man) and Kenny. Kenny came to their rescue and earned their trust. And they could have just asked Kenny for his opinions on Comolli (instead of turning to Beane) or the role as such. They could also have given Kenny the chance to shape his organisation, the same way they've given Rodgers that trust.

“We must have more than the right manager for the long‐term – we must have the best football operation in the world.  That cannot be based on any one person because if that person leaves, you must rebuild.  LFC needs stability.  LFC must have a philosophy that endures and is in the hands a group of people devoted to the Club who work together for something much larger than themselves”

In addition to this, in October 2011 John Henry was asked if the initial plan had always been to install a young manager, commenting:

“Initially it was. You want to have long-term stability in as much as the staff as possible.”

LFC needs stability. And what kind of stabililty do they offer? They implement a new structure, they rip it up and they say they don't want to place everything with one man. And now? They've pretty much gone against that too and given Rodgers the task. And in their ambition, they have gone for a manager who is yet to prove anything at this level. (I don't critisise Rodgers, he's done a good job so far in his career. I critisise their selection criterias). It looks to me like they don't quite know what to do. Instead of taking a steady approach, they gamble a little here and there.

For me, there are too many mixed messages for me to feel good about things. I do credit FSG for the financial stability. Apart from that, I am not convinced.

[Vulmea]

the OP isn't balanced its a defence of FSG and I'm not sure its justified.

We are LFC, one of the greatest sporting institutions in the world,  they are honoured to own us - not the other way around.

its yet another piece telling me what I should think and why I should think it - it doesn't have the normal location 'somewhere in the USA' but it may as well have.

If FSG had a genuine presence in the UK rather than a front man perhaps there could be more trust - perhaps the dialogue with supporters groups would be more tangible.

If FSG could make their minds up about anything and then stick with it perhaps we could get behind the 'plan'. This time last year Kenny was given 3 years - that was their call not mine - people saying Rodgers is their man, their choice - it was FSG that dragged Kenny off a cruise ship, it was FSG that handed him a 3 year contract then seemingly changed their mind less than 6 months later. If as everybody suspects FSG were never really behind Kenny how the hell can you trust them?

It was FSG who brought in Comolli, FSG that signed off on the players, FSG who sacked Comolli because he hadn't kept on strategy even though they signed the cheques to support what he did - how does that work again?

It was FSG who said we're going to have a DoF, Ayre even said it again this week - it was Rodgers who said 'I'll be in charge'. So which is it?

It was FSG who said they'd taken expert advice on the structure and then listened to a novice manager and changed their minds. So which is it?

It was FSG that ran the beauty parade for a manager and then apparently gave it to the man they first thought of because it was right to have a process although nobody else runs a process like it. So which is it?

It was FSG who finally sorted out the Suarez debacle even though we were told specifically by Ayre it wasn't.  Did they react or not? Who do we trust the front man or the puppeteer?

It was FSG who said they wouldn't load debt on the club, they haven't yet apparently. Do we have any reason to believe what they say?

On the commercial side even Hicks and Gillet massively improved turnover - our commercial side was stuck in the 80's there was and still is potential to improve that.

It is to their credit that the debt has gone and that money has been reinvested but to be honest if that was not the case they would have been battered wouldn't they?

It was FSG that said they'd had constructive dialogue with residents around the stadium and the residents who reacted angrily to say no you haven't. Which to believe?

FSG have no appreciation of football, they have shown it again and again. They are providing lip service to the idea of being good owners and custodians, much more so than Hicks and Gillet. The honeymoon is over. Its not about the obvious mistakes they've made, they are new to the game I appreciate that, up until this spring I had a couple of concerns but was laid back about their intentions. The problem I have now is they've shown a ruthless streak whilst remaining detached from any understanding of the game. The've made decisions and then failed to stick with them. If you attributed any management structure with those attributes they'd be labelled incompetent, I dont see why FSG should be any different.

We are being told it will take time for Rodgers to build, dont be hasty and at the same time have just sacked a manager 12 months into a 36 month contract. Any manager, let alone Dalglish, could quite rightly say wtf? We are being told, yes FSG have made mistakes but bare with them they'll get it right. I'll just remind you, we sacked a person Tom Werner described as 'the heart and soul of the club' 12 months into a 36 month contract. This stacks up logically how?

FSG have not had to make that many decisions and they've failed to impress. They need to bloody improve because they have not been anywhere near good enough.

[Zelnaga]

We are LFC, one of the greatest sporting institutions in the world,  they are honoured to own us - not the other way around.

And yet, LFC could have went into administration by the cowboys had FSG not stepped in.

[RideTheWalrus]

They're not perfect, but it's still early days. A lot of their abuse has been very misdirected.

[Vulmea]

And yet, LFC could have went into administration by the cowboys had FSG not stepped in.

And that changes things how?

We'd have gone bust or we wouldn't - we'd be in the same type of shit that Rangers are now and just like the Rangers fans we'd have endured - we'd have rebuilt and we'd have come back stronger.

I'd have taken relegation and going bust to get rid of Hicks and Gillet, said so at the time, thats not to say I would have welcomed it or wanted it.  FSG was the preferable course. None of which removes their obligations or changes the fact LFC is one of the greatest sporting institutions in the world.

[kopite_sg8]

in my opinion, for fsg, building a new stadium is the easy way out. they could easily get naming right partners for atleast half the cost of the stadium and finance the rest with debt. but the fact that they're still trying to pursue the other option tells me that they care for our club and want whats best for it (same as fenway park). anfield has got a lot of intangible wealth connected to it like goodwil etc etc which cannot be measurable directly against the benefits of a new stadium. if it was upto me, I would want fsg to take their time if that means we could redevelop anfield in any way possible.

iam not using this to defend them for other decisions they have made, but taken as a seperate issue I think due credit to them for still finding a way to stay at anfield. well I could be wrong though.

[Lazy Gun]

A hard-nosed financial viewpoint

FSG is made up of Henry, plus principal partners and others who have invested their money in an investment vehicle, to make money.

LFC was purchased through a classic "distress" sale.  We were not "saved" by FSG.  We were cheap given the clubs potential globally.  FSG saw this.

For us fans winning is the sole purpose of the club.  For FSG winning trophies is only one means to an end, which is increasing the value of the club.  They will have a medium to long term view of the means to grow the value of the club.  This will be done, probably in this order, sponsorship deals, TV and cable rights,  increasing attendance, and lastly by winning trophies.

They will have an exit strategy to monetize their investment. They will have a view of what that number is and when, and will do whatever it takes to achieve this goal.  If things go well we will see lots of investment, the club winning trophies, and we will all be happy.  If the competition and the spend from City, Chelsea, and ManU continues, we will be funded to achieve 4th and the CL and no more.  The benefit doesn't justify the extra spend to win the league.

Their nett spend is not large to date.  A large proportion of it has been paying off managers and release fees.

They will be ruthless (as we have seen).  I believe one of the reasons Rafa was not considered this time, is because FSG want to remove the fans sense of entitlement to decide / influence what the club does.  Over the past 4 years we have campaigned with success to influence the course of the club.  This sense of empowerment needs to be removed.

I have worked with Venture Capital and Investment companies.  Believe me, on financial issues they are single minded and ruthless. 

Don't kid yourself guys.  We are an investment.

Having said all of this, I think and hope that Rodgers is a pretty good choice if they won't consider Rafa.

For FSG the jury is still out IMHO.
 
   


 

[RedHandGang]

Not sure it is abuse as most people I know are appalled at the way that things have been handled in recent memory. The treatment of Kenny was abysmal and no amount of supportive posts will eradicate this. They have either been bold or stupid and time will tell but they have gambled with the fortunes of a football club and are doing it their way, but to expect the paying support to swallow the changes and continue to fleece... ahem run a business and effective leverage of the franchise brand whilst syngergising the brand identity with likeminded corporates.

This unabashed capitalistic approach is what most can't identify with especially after the G&H debacle.

As I said time will tell and most are rightly sceptical.

[Grobbelrevell]

The FSG the jury is still out IMHO.

You're quite right, it is and as I tried to hint at, it will be for some time yet because the vast majority of what is happening both on and off the field is happening with a medium to long term goal in mind. We should of course critique their actions throughout but again it needs to be both objective and realistic and i'm not sure that's always the case. Understandably so in some ways, but still.

the OP isn't balanced...

...its yet another piece telling me what I should think and why I should think it - it doesn't have the normal location 'somewhere in the USA' but it may as well have.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think, i'm simply outlining things as I see them and trying (and perhaps failing) to offer a reasoned critique of their ownership to date. I'm fairly sure I offer criticisms in there as well and don't misunderstand me on that, I have certain doubts too (not least over the stadium and their apparent backtracking over the DoF role), but I also try to look at things objectively if I can.

If FSG had a genuine presence in the UK rather than a front man perhaps there could be more trust - perhaps the dialogue with supporters groups would be more tangible.

Again, I don't believe that delegation is a bad thing but it relies heavily on who you're delegating to. At present that man is Ian Ayre for the most part and whether he is the best man for that is open to debate. I believe we lack a genuine CEO with a knowledge of the game and have done for some time. Perhaps that man is set to come in over the coming weeks. We'll see I guess.

If FSG could make their minds up about anything and then stick with it perhaps we could get behind the 'plan'. This time last year Kenny was given 3 years - that was their call not mine - people saying Rodgers is their man, their choice - it was FSG that dragged Kenny off a cruise ship, it was FSG that handed him a 3 year contract then seemingly changed their mind less than 6 months later. If as everybody suspects FSG were never really behind Kenny how the hell can you trust them?

Let's be clear with this, it's almost entirely speculative because we don't know what the actual thinking behind each decision was beyond the PR friendly quotes we're given, but I personally believe that Kenny was brought back as a short term appointment to see us through the 2010/11 season initially, and to help (re-)unite the club. He did that and a whole lot more, which forced FSG to abandon their initial plan and give him the job. Perhaps a one year rolling contract would've been a better option for all parties but i'm led to believe that Kenny made it clear that he wouldn't accept that. I also don't believe that FSG wanted Kenny to fail - why would they? - but as I tried to hint at, there was a logical argument for Kenny leaving based on the league campaign alone. Emotional aspect aside there were Reds who believed that and clearly FSG did too.

It was FSG who brought in Comolli, FSG that signed off on the players, FSG who sacked Comolli because he hadn't kept on strategy even though they signed the cheques to support what he did - how does that work again?

Overall I don't think it cam be denied that Comolli was a failed appointment and how they arrived at that appointment is questionable, but to criticise them for backing a man they appointed - and ultimately the club - financially is very harsh IMO. They appointed him to offer the expertise that they admit to lacking and backed him in light of that. He ultimately failed and paid the price.

It was FSG who said we're going to have a DoF, Ayre even said it again this week - it was Rodgers who said 'I'll be in charge'. So which is it?

It was FSG who said they'd taken expert advice on the structure and then listened to a novice manager and changed their minds. So which is it?

This, as i've already said, I agree with. It's a concern for me because the one thing that Rodgers clearly lacks, however good a coach he is, is experience at the top level so placing the correct structure around him is vital. Whilst he stated his unwillingness to work under a DoF he did also highlight his desire to see a 'technical team' formed so perhaps the management structure that was mooted will still be seen to an extent. There are still respected sources who believe us to be in conversation with Txiki Bergestein (however you spell it), which would be a welcome appointment. Again, this is largely speculative at this point though because we won't know until an appointment is made (or not, as the case may be).

It was FSG that ran the beauty parade for a manager and then apparently gave it to the man they first thought of because it was right to have a process although nobody else runs a process like it. So which is it?

Again, I think you're being overly harsh on this point. Is it wrong to draw up a list of candidates that match your selection criteria and look to approach them? The bulk of criticism i've seen on this has resulted from the host of public rejections and snippets of media information, but how much of it originated from LFC? Very little indeed. Beyond Rodgers initially the so called rejections were nothing of the sort, they'd been offered nothing to reject and had simply been asked a speculative question by a keen journalist and answered as would be expected by a man under contract. The rest was the spawn of Dave Whelen. I would argue that FSG actually deserve some credit for the way they handled the process, which from our side was primarily in house and respectful.

It was FSG who said they wouldn't load debt on the club, they haven't yet apparently. Do we have any reason to believe what they say?

Do we have a concrete reason to not believe them, speculation aside? The accounts prove they were true to their word regarding the acquisition debt. That's good enough for me so far. Again, assess, but do it objectively.

It is to their credit that the debt has gone and that money has been reinvested but to be honest if that was not the case they would have been battered wouldn't they?

Yes they would and rightly so, but it is the case so i'm not sure what your argument is there.

It was FSG that said they'd had constructive dialogue with residents around the stadium and the residents who reacted angrily to say no you haven't. Which to believe?

I must admit i've seen nothing regarding the residents reacting in that way and if that's the case i'd obviously have no reason to doubt them. I don't suppose you have a link to that?

The've made decisions and then failed to stick with them. If you attributed any management structure with those attributes they'd be labelled incompetent, I dont see why FSG should be any different.

I agree with this to an extent, as i've mentioned regarding the DoF role, but is there not a case to be made for recognising a mistake early and acting decisively to correct it? One of the main criticisms of Gerrard Houllier during his time with us was a failure to do exactly that regarding his signings.

up until this spring I had a couple of concerns but was laid back about their intentions. The problem I have now is they've shown a ruthless streak whilst remaining detached from any understanding of the game.

We are being told it will take time for Rodgers to build, dont be hasty and at the same time have just sacked a manager 12 months into a 36 month contract. Any manager, let alone Dalglish, could quite rightly say wtf? We are being told, yes FSG have made mistakes but bare with them they'll get it right. I'll just remind you, we sacked a person Tom Werner described as 'the heart and soul of the club' 12 months into a 36 month contract. This stacks up logically how?

And I suspect that this is the crux of the issue with FSG for yourself and many others - the decision to remove Kenny. It's understandable and I share many of those feelings regarding the decision from an emotional perspective, but as I tried to allude to in the OP, FSG do not share the emotional attachment to history of the club and in turn to Kenny that we do and therefore from their perspective this decision was a calculated one based on logic alone and like it or not there is a valid logical argument against Kenny renaining. Equally there was one for of course, but the very fact that there was a clear argument for both sides should at least be recognised rather than the decision simply being lambasted because it's not one you agree personally with.

[DRice]

Never mind the fact that FGS will do just enough to get into the top 4 and no more, this is immaterial, we can never match the spending of the top 3 so to attempt to do so would be foolhardy of the owners they simply dont have the money, so it will be down to rodgers and how much of a genius he is to take us from top 4 (once we get there) to the title / champions league winners itself..i think the figures of £20 for transfers for the summer of 2012 bandied about in the media today is fairly low considering what we actually require to get back into the top 4, in my opinion £40m is required and anything else is a half assed attempt, I trust FGS know this.

[JackWard33]

Think the time for this is after the summer

If they only spend 20ish million in the summer and reduce the wage bill and haven't made a statement about the stadium then its time to get really concerned

[NHRed]

Never mind the fact that FGS will do just enough to get into the top 4 and no more,

Prove it.  That is no sort of fact at all.  That is your belief - to which you are entitled - but please own it as such.  If you'd like to convince others, show us your evidence and reasoning.

I mean, come on, ffs.

[opsteo]

Any owner that bought us, cleared our debts and do not load their acquisition costs as debt to our club should be praised. Yes, we may not agree with all their decisions  and we may not like them for removing Kenny prematurely, but so far, they did not lie to us, they put their own money to improve the club.
As I see it, unless you can find another God-Daddy that throws money at you just for fun,  like Roman or some other oil Baron, we have a rather benign owner (so far, I rate them better than ManU and Arsenal). 

Yes, we like Kenny or even Rafa to be given another chance but $300mil also means that FSG buys a right to try their preferred way(afterall to them, it worked for Red Sox who was in a deeper hole than Liverpool). We ask the owners for patience for Kenny to achieve his vision -  just be the wallet and allow others to freely spend their money without any safeguards like DoF etc - would you really allow an obsessed person (as most fans and managers are) unlimited access to your savings account (Especially, if you realise that the person have a tendency to overspend) ?

Ultimately, what patience do we give to the owners and for them to try to achieve their vision?

[Zeb]

The stadium is an area where we have to measure twice and cut once. A mistake there will kill us as a club with any aspirations of silverware - and even of CL football. They inherited a total clusterfuck. I can appreciate that 20 months down the line does seem like a long period to come to a decision, but the stakes are so high we need it to be perfect which will take time as they review the options open to us.

Not sure really whether not pulling money out of the club should be considered something worthy of praise? Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, as examples would be setting the bar so low that FSG would have to limbo to get beneath it. Likewise with the acquisition debt. As far as can be told, FSG have been truthful about not placing acquisition debt on the club. Which is good. But that's kind of the bare minimum.

With transfer kitties, they've actually put money into the club (or had done as of 31st July 2011). £30m on top of what we generated ourselves. But again, we're running into the issue of whether demanding that the manager should be generating a surplus every window from transfers is the standard against which FSG should be judged? I'd say it isn't. Although, on the other hand, there can be no criticism that they didn't put money in last summer. They did. Know some will be keen to point out that there were rumours of a £30m cut to the wage bill - maybe there has been. But unless they pull that money out again, then that's additional funds to spend on players this summer (personally I suspect that the number will be substantially lower in any case).

My question on this would be whether, taking the squad available to Kenny at the start of last summer, an effective transfer budget of £54m was sufficient to guarantee a top 4 finish? Spurs' charge into the CL places came on the back of £80m being put in for new players over just one year, and close to £130m being spent (over and above what they've received) over the past few seasons. That's a fair comparison, albeit Spurs have used their wage bill far more efficiently than we have over that time period - our's being bloated to that extent is a monument to the H&G years. That's not a mealy-mouthed damning of FSG not spending enough, just to pre-empt anyone thinking of wading in there, but a genuine question based on the squad being denuded of quality in depth over two years and compounded by a transfer window of total insanity bringing in players for Hodgson.
 
Much has been said and written about the structure of the club and the great leap forward planned for this summer. What is obvious is that Comolli's tenure as DoF, and the confused and muddled managerial lines, was judged lacking in a number of areas. Whether that was the utterly bizarre willingness to piss off Ajax over Suarez and then jumping to meet Newcastle's asking price for Carroll or the 'how not to handle things' guide provided by the Suarez case, something had to change. And it has. But we've not introduced a new system here. We've essentially gone back to a very traditionally English way of running a football club if what Rodgers has said so far is accurate.

Not sure whether this is a case of inexperience and being forced to rely on advisors, as Rodgers suggested, or just a very pragmatic decision. Does one praise them for their flexibility or question whether they really know what they're doing? An interesting point Rodgers made was that in the planned structure, the DoF/General Manager/Head of Football Affairs should have been the first person appointed to guide the search for the manager - it was certainly a recruitment process which seemed to reflect our owners trying to get to grips with football and the advice they were receiving from their experts. Whatever the case, one certainly can't praise them for implementing a new structure. The blueprint they're currently using was one we used for 40 years - bravo for reinventing the wheel seems overblown.

For me, the big concerns are those over long-term commitments. Whether those are to owning the club for a decent length of time rather than seeking a quick turnaround and sale, or to a commitment to give a manager time to implement things properly rather than seeking seemingly quick and easy 'fixes' and then starting from Year Zero every other season.

The concerns over how the club is managed remain, even setting aside any worries over Rodgers' abilities to handle the workload and pressure of the Liverpool job. Not least would be the question mark over whether Ayre is capable of fulfilling a remit which must look increasingly like the one Parry held. However, they have acted to at least clear up the confused and muddled set up they implemented by employing Comolli which is in itself progress even outside of question marks over their lack of knowledge seeming to hamper their ability to find staff able to run the club in their absence. It's perfectly possible to be an absentee owner, but there needs to be effective and clear leadership provided in at least some form.

Can see where Grobbelrevell is coming from, because some of the criticisms have been either misguided or untrue - and that's not helpful should there come a time when we do need to kick up a stink, boy who cried wolf syndrome comes to mind - but likewise, not being Hicks or Gillett isn't really something which deserves praise. FSG are smarter than that. The bar is higher. The bar is our normal expectations of owners.

[No666]

Zeb, that's a cracking post. Will the next accounts show or suggest if that £30m came from the wages bill?

On another note: I'm unsure if 12th man is being ironic or not? A 'messiah'? In any case, my job as a supporter is to get behind the team. The club is a different entity entirely and it's absurd to anoint any of the managerial team or the owners at this juncture. I don't see that as 'overly negative.' I see it as sensible.

[Zeb]

Will the next accounts show or suggest if that £30m came from the wages bill?

The £30m came as an interest free loan because we spent more than we were taking in and FSG covered the difference above cash we had in the bank. So we'll see whether the loan stayed there or not this financial year or was repaid by the club back up the chain. In conjunction with that, it's worth keeping an eye on our overdraft facility and whether we're dipping deeper into it. Neither would, objectively, mean terrible things in themselves but would be things to keep in mind.

[Fat Scouser]

I can't even be arsed going into the finances. I've only got one thing to say... I've got no time for them. They are foriegn investors, here to make a buck, nothing more, nothing less.

That will no doubt, get the usual replies... "we have to succeed on the pitch for them to succeed in business. Look at the great job they done at Boston Red Sox." It's the non-stop mantra of FSG appologists, and it's pure bollocks.

We know neither answer is the full truth. As financiers, I'd say they've got that bit down... they are very economical with the truth, indeed. The fact is, they decided to get Dalglish out after the Suarez/Evra affair. They wanted someone who could play the politics game and go down well with the media, so Kenny was fucked even before the Carling Cup final.

That will be defended by FSG appologists because of the league results. Again, that's bollocks. Does anybody at all believe Rodgers would be sacked at the end of the season, if it turns out to mirror last season? Would he fuck.

Kenny was sacked mid-season, not at the end. They then embarked on the search, and they didn't even speak to Rafa. Regardless, of what you think of that, it means, they weren't searching out the best managers available. They were searching out someone to fit in their plans. Well, that plan seems pretty obvious to me... they are trying to create a nice new, media friendly, happy clappy Liverpool so they can sell the whole shiny package as soon as the time is right.

Que the screams from the appologists. Fuck them and fuck FSG. I don't support FSG. I don't give a toss about people who think we have to back the board. They have nothing to do with me. They have nothing to do with the club. They are just the people who hold the deeds at this time. They'll sell them on to the next lot as soon as they think the time is right. The next lot will be no different than FSG. We are now a commodity, to be bought and sold like Weetabix.

I don't give a fuck about John Henry. I don't even know who Werner and LeBron are. As for the rest of them, I don't even know how many of them there are. I do know one thing about them though... not one of them knew anything about football, until they read about Hicks and Gillettes troubles in the financial papers. They only became interested when they knew an internationally famous brand might become available for buttons. They took a punt. They made the 2nd highest bid. They were picked by a board with interests in nothing but finance.

I can't be arsed getting into some internet spat over this. I have no interest in arguing about how bad or good international financiers are for the club. The fact is, we are a commodity. FSG are the new owners. The club became just another commodity the day dickhead Moores sold to H&G. That's our future now.


In the words of Pete Townsend... Meet the new Boss, same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again.

Feel like arguing, go get your half'n'half FSG/LFC scarf out and find someone else to argue it out with. I know what they are. I don't like their kind. I accept it's how football has gone. I can't wait for football's greed to eat itself. When the whole thing collapses like the false economy it is, we might get back to being something like the thing I fell in love with. And that couldn't come quick enough in my book, as I can't stand what football has become. FSG... you can stick em, and all like em, right up yer jacksie as far as I'm concerned.

[Abrak]

I like Zeb's cracking post. However, the comment about Spurs is a bit misleading. Although they have been broadly profitable, Spurs have spent considerably more than they have earnt to finance their squad. This has not been done though through the largesse of their owner - merely by leveraging their balance sheet. At the end of 2006 the club had net cash in the balance sheet and as they invested in their squad so the net debt at the club increased as the table (from Swiss Ramble) shows.

[shravan.satya]

I can't even be arsed going into the finances. I've only got one thing to say... I've got no time for them. They are foriegn investors, here to make a buck, nothing more, nothing less.

That will no doubt, get the usual replies... "we have to succeed on the pitch for them to succeed in business. Look at the great job they done at Boston Red Sox." It's the non-stop mantra of FSG appologists, and it's pure bollocks.

We know neither answer is the full truth. As financiers, I'd say they've got that bit down... they are very economical with the truth, indeed. The fact is, they decided to get Dalglish out after the Suarez/Evra affair. They wanted someone who could play the politics game and go down well with the media, so Kenny was fucked even before the Carling Cup final.

That will be defended by FSG appologists because of the league results. Again, that's bollocks. Does anybody at all believe Rodgers would be sacked at the end of the season, if it turns out to mirror last season? Would he fuck.

Kenny was sacked mid-season, not at the end. They then embarked on the search, and they didn't even speak to Rafa. Regardless, of what you think of that, it means, they weren't searching out the best managers available. They were searching out someone to fit in their plans. Well, that plan seems pretty obvious to me... they are trying to create a nice new, media friendly, happy clappy Liverpool so they can sell the whole shiny package as soon as the time is right.

Que the screams from the appologists. Fuck them and fuck FSG. I don't support FSG. I don't give a toss about people who think we have to back the board. They have nothing to do with me. They have nothing to do with the club. They are just the people who hold the deeds at this time. They'll sell them on to the next lot as soon as they think the time is right. The next lot will be no different than FSG. We are now a commodity, to be bought and sold like Weetabix.

I don't give a fuck about John Henry. I don't even know who Werner and LeBron are. As for the rest of them, I don't even know how many of them there are. I do know one thing about them though... not one of them knew anything about football, until they read about Hicks and Gillettes troubles in the financial papers. They only became interested when they knew an internationally famous brand might become available for buttons. They took a punt. They made the 2nd highest bid. They were picked by a board with interests in nothing but finance.

I can't be arsed getting into some internet spat over this. I have no interest in arguing about how bad or good international financiers are for the club. The fact is, we are a commodity. FSG are the new owners. The club became just another commodity the day dickhead Moores sold to H&G. That's our future now.


In the words of Pete Townsend... Meet the new Boss, same as the old boss. We won't get fooled again.

Feel like arguing, go get your half'n'half FSG/LFC scarf out and find someone else to argue it out with. I know what they are. I don't like their kind. I accept it's how football has gone. I can't wait for football's greed to eat itself. When the whole thing collapses like the false economy it is, we might get back to being something like the thing I fell in love with. And that couldn't come quick enough in my book, as I can't stand what football has become. FSG... you can stick em, and all like em, right up yer jacksie as far as I'm concerned.

On another note, your writing is incredible, mate, and you have convinced me. Football these days is just a sorry state of affairs. Cringeworthy.