Topic: FSG discussion thread

[Draex]

Our wages shot up on account of a fucking miracle worker turning water into wine! We had no right to compete as well as did given our net spend since Jurgen took over. Our commercial revenues have increased hugely in that time too.

I think a few people are in for a rude awakening when he leaves!

Our wages shot up because we retained our best players, we found undervalued players (using the structure FSG put in place before Klopp), paired them with a world class coach and created one of the best sides in world football and then paid them top whack to keep the side together.

Salah is a prime example, he was 4th choice behind Brandt, Pulisic and Draxler. "Laptop" Eddie and his nerds kept pushing Salah.

That's not all Klopp, it's not all FSG, it's a collective of excellence.

So this notion FSG got lucky with Klopp is just a bizzare way of warping an agenda, he came into an existing structure and helped elevated it to world class, but he was still one cog (all be it very important one) in the machine.

That's what we need to go back to, all areas of the club working together maximising our strengths.

[keyop]

little ironic surely to mock Al for using this thread to say some things over and over again, then immediately follow up with a post saying all of this stuff as if it's fresh information?

Oh, are Man City cheats? And you think not enough people on are conscious or considerate of that? We might have won more trophies under Klopp if they didn't exist? what a refreshing new take!

(to be fair, maybe the part where you say "too many people" is quite novel - the idea it's not embedded in our supporters psyches is bizarre and not in keeping with my encounters with fellow supporters and on RAWK)

we all have our spells of getting involved in these sorts of discussions. you take regular shots at Al for the zeal of his critiques about FSGs performance and imply he's not being rational, but don't appear to acknowledge that your spirited defence of all things FSG (and moves to deflect critiques of their performance) is just as zealous only it's in the opposite direction. you literally just said in a nutshell there's nothing valid to critique FSG about!

Actually - I don't think some people are as conscious of City's cheating as their post history or their tone on here suggests. I think many want a sugar daddy owner regardless of where the money comes from, but they hide behind net spend arguments or some other spurious angle just because they didn't get all the toys they wanted for Christmas.

It's literally been us vs City for 5 seasons prior to Arsenal's challenge, yet some seem to focus on how much we would've, could've or should've spent, and how much more success that might have brought - against a club backed by an oil state!

Then there's Utd spending hundreds of millions just to stand still with a crumbling stadium, colossal debt, and fan protests. Or Chelsea's botched takeover and disastrous spending spree leaving them in 12th on 44 points.

Spending more and more money is not the answer in a footballing world that's been completely warped by the City's and PSG's over the last 10 years. FSG's model would be fine if other's weren't cheating, and we could easily be sat on 21 league titles and possibly another CL under Jurgen if we hadn't had to go toe to toe with City for 6 years, with the inevitable physical and psychological strain that put on the players.

I enjoyed Liverpool in the 80's and 90's, but have still had one of the best rides ever these last 6 years. I'm personally comfortable with prudent owners that are risk averse - especially during a period when transfer fees and wages went crazy and there was a global pandemic. We've won trophies and had amazing times - even if we haven't won as much as we might have wanted. Whilst winning those trophies, we've added 15,000 seats to Anfield, developed the area around the stadium , and built a brand new training complex. Which other Premier League team has done all of that under their owners over the last 10 years that aren't cheating?

There's just far too much entitled whining and cry-arsing, when some fans of other clubs will never see what we've had (even in the last few years) in their entire lifetime.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Our wages shot up because we retained our best players, we found undervalued players (using the structure FSG put in place before Klopp), paired them with a world class coach and created one of the best sides in world football and then paid them top whack to keep the side together.

Salah is a prime example, he was 4th choice behind Brandt, Pulisic and Draxler. "Laptop" Eddie and his nerds kept pushing Salah.

That's not all Klopp, it's not all FSG, it's a collective of excellence.

So this notion FSG got lucky with Klopp is just a bizzare way of warping an agenda, he came into an existing structure and helped elevated it to world class, but he was still one cog (all be it very important one) in the machine.

That's what we need to go back to, all areas of the club working together maximising our strengths.

We had the 5th highest wage bill (due to winning trophies) but remind me where we stand in the deloitte league again  ?

[classycarra]

Actually - I don't think some people are as conscious of City's cheating as their post history or their tone on here suggests. I think many want a sugar daddy owner regardless of where the money comes from, but they hide behind net spend arguments or some other spurious angle just because they didn't get all the toys they wanted for Christmas.

snip

There's just far too much entitled whining and cry-arsing, when some fans of other clubs will never see what we've had (even in the last few years) in their entire lifetime.

Right, this was my point.

You mocked Al for labouring the point - from his perspective, FSG could do more to help the team compete - without noticing that we all know your view on this because you've also laboured the point (only in the near-opposite direction) - from your perspective, the existence of City (and their cheating) means that that it is morally bad for people to critique FSG (who do not cheat).

There's not really a big difference between Al making some good arguments, but then lurching towards something slightly irrational - eg making an assertion about FSG have made x mistake consciously because of y devious reason - that harms his argument and you making some good arguments, but then lurching towards something slightly irrational - eg lots of RAWKites who think FSG could perform better secretly want a sugar daddy/sportswash owner because they're deviously arguing FSG could do better- that harms your argument.

[Eeyore]

Our wages shot up because we retained our best players, we found undervalued players (using the structure FSG put in place before Klopp), paired them with a world class coach and created one of the best sides in world football and then paid them top whack to keep the side together.

Or did our wages shoot up because a risk-averse organisation went for a hugely performance-based salary structure and then had their fingers burnt when Klopp massively overachieved?

As for the structure they put in place it was an absolute shambles prior to Klopp. We had a situation in which the TC and Rodgers were taking turns a piece selecting players that simply didn't fit. I mean what kind of shambolic system spends massive transfer fees on Bobby and Benteke in the same window. The system was so shambolic Rodgers and the TC were slaughtering each other in the media. The very definition of airing your dirty laundry in public.

Salah is a prime example, he was 4th choice behind Brandt, Pulisic and Draxler. "Laptop" Eddie and his nerds kept pushing Salah.

This is just bizarre. It is as if other teams don't have analysts, scouts and recruitment professionals. You are praising the recruitment team for actually doing their job. That is how it should be with a DoF or Coach utilising the skills of the recruitment team.

That's not all Klopp, it's not all FSG, it's a collective of excellence.

So this notion FSG got lucky with Klopp is just a bizzare way of warping an agenda, he came into an existing structure and helped elevated it to world class, but he was still one cog (all be it very important one) in the machine.

That's what we need to go back to, all areas of the club working together maximising our strengths.

The existing structure was an absolute shitshow. Klopp didn't just elevate it he made it work. Look at the way we pissed away the Suarez money. We brought in players like Balotelli, Markovic and laughably Rickie Lambert for a combined £45m.

[Eeyore]

Actually - I don't think some people are as conscious of City's cheating as their post history or their tone on here suggests. I think many want a sugar daddy owner regardless of where the money comes from, but they hide behind net spend arguments or some other spurious angle just because they didn't get all the toys they wanted for Christmas.

It's literally been us vs City for 5 seasons prior to Arsenal's challenge, yet some seem to focus on how much we would've, could've or should've spent, and how much more success that might have brought - against a club backed by an oil state!

Then there's Utd spending hundreds of millions just to stand still with a crumbling stadium, colossal debt, and fan protests. Or Chelsea's botched takeover and disastrous spending spree leaving them in 12th on 44 points.

Spending more and more money is not the answer in a footballing world that's been completely warped by the City's and PSG's over the last 10 years. FSG's model would be fine if other's weren't cheating, and we could easily be sat on 21 league titles and possibly another CL under Jurgen if we hadn't had to go toe to toe with City for 6 years, with the inevitable physical and psychological strain that put on the players.

I enjoyed Liverpool in the 80's and 90's, but have still had one of the best rides ever these last 6 years. I'm personally comfortable with prudent owners that are risk averse - especially during a period when transfer fees and wages went crazy and there was a global pandemic. We've won trophies and had amazing times - even if we haven't won as much as we might have wanted. Whilst winning those trophies, we've added 15,000 seats to Anfield, developed the area around the stadium , and built a brand new training complex. Which other Premier League team has done all of that under their owners over the last 10 years that aren't cheating?

There's just far too much entitled whining and cry-arsing, when some fans of other clubs will never see what we've had (even in the last few years) in their entire lifetime.

All people asking is for the club to be allowed to spend the revenues it generates on recruiting players and wages.

All we are asking for is the infrastructure costs to be paid by FSG either through loans or preferably from the seismic increase in the value of the club.

All we are asking for is that equity that is generated on Merseyside should be spent on Merseyside.

No one is asking for a Sugar Daddy, Nation-state or Oligarch no matter how much you try and portray that bizarre notion.

[keyop]

Right, this was my point.

You mocked Al for labouring the point - from his perspective, FSG could do more to help the team compete - without noticing that we all know your view on this because you've also laboured the point (only in the near-opposite direction) - from your perspective, the existence of City (and their cheating) means that that it is morally bad for people to critique FSG (who do not cheat).

There's not really a big difference between Al making some good arguments, but then lurching towards something slightly irrational - eg making an assertion about FSG have made x mistake consciously because of y devious reason - that harms his argument and you making some good arguments, but then lurching towards something slightly irrational - eg lots of RAWKites who think FSG could perform better secretly want a sugar daddy/sportswash owner because they're deviously arguing FSG could do better- that harms your argument.

The main part of my post is below (which you conveniently snipped...).

Do you have any views on that - instead of just critiquing other people's critiques of each other?

What do you feel is the primary reason City have won 5 of the last 6 titles - is it the way we've been run as a club, or the way they have?

Do you not think we've done well in spite of City's cheating, whilst paying good wages, extending contracts, developing infrastructure, and not putting the club in massive debt whilst doing so?

Because that's the crux of my argument - which I clearly set out in the OP, and which you've repeatedly missed on this thread.

It's literally been us vs City for 5 seasons prior to Arsenal's challenge, yet some seem to focus on how much we would've, could've or should've spent, and how much more success that might have brought - against a club backed by an oil state!

Then there's Utd spending hundreds of millions just to stand still with a crumbling stadium, colossal debt, and fan protests. Or Chelsea's botched takeover and disastrous spending spree leaving them in 12th on 44 points.

Spending more and more money is not the answer in a footballing world that's been completely warped by the City's and PSG's over the last 10 years. FSG's model would be fine if other's weren't cheating, and we could easily be sat on 21 league titles and possibly another CL under Jurgen if we hadn't had to go toe to toe with City for 6 years, with the inevitable physical and psychological strain that put on the players.

I enjoyed Liverpool in the 80's and 90's, but have still had one of the best rides ever these last 6 years. I'm personally comfortable with prudent owners that are risk averse - especially during a period when transfer fees and wages went crazy and there was a global pandemic. We've won trophies and had amazing times - even if we haven't won as much as we might have wanted. Whilst winning those trophies, we've added 15,000 seats to Anfield, developed the area around the stadium , and built a brand new training complex. Which other Premier League team has done all of that under their owners over the last 10 years that aren't cheating?

[classycarra]

The main part of my post is below (which you conveniently snipped...).

mate, it's not a conspiracy! trust me I read it, and understand your point (thought I was clear on that).

I was trying to save space in my reply. Again, thought i was clear that i found it ironic you made a jibe about Al repeating the same things over and over (but then you added to the irony by reposting your message from earlier, so maybe not).

Do you have any views on that - instead of just critiquing other people's critiques of each other?

snip

Because that's the crux of my argument - which I clearly set out in the OP, and which you've repeatedly missed on this thread.

let me repeat for you again, I know your argument. You've mistaken me not wanting to retread old ground (which earlier today you said was a bad thing when it was Al doing it), with me being someone who doesn't share views.

I've shared more than enough here, and recall in the past you've mischaracterised/dramatised what I think in the same way you did above ('these people want a sugar daddy but wont say it').

I've already said one of them, as have others on this page, but you've 'repeatedly missed' it. FSG should have operated same credit model for the second and third infrastructure project as they did for the first. it would save the club millions in interest payments alone, and is clearly legal fair viable and within their capabilities - they have opted not to, which has meant that the club has a lower budget than necessary.

i want the club to be as obsessed with winning as the coaches players and supporters are - i know this isn't how venture capitalists in sport work, but i just want them more closely aligned to our goals. any marginal gain that helps towards that goal should be considered - and getting a small bit of interest-free credit from your owners who are worth over $10billion, which they've provided before when they were worth less money, is the definition of an achievable marginal gain.

just to quickly try to head you off at the pass, let me point out that this view is entirely LFC-centric - and not mutually exclusive to anything else outside the club - no action from any of the other 91 league teams in this country affects this viewpoint.

[ToneLa]

Wish this was a news posts only thread haha

[Lycan]

Wish this was a news posts only thread haha

I know what you mean mate. Tedious.

[Egyptian36]

When a manager lose all his defenders for long term injures and FSG refuse to invest that's not because of City.

[keyop]

What has City got to do with LFC being hundreds of million away from FFP limits. What has City got to do with FSGs choice to invest in infrastructure that they ultimately own instead of players when the squad had gaping holes in it.

For me if we had won the League in 13-14 then there is every possibility that FSG would have turned the taps off earlier and invested even more revenues into infrastructure. We would have just plodded along doing just enough to be semi competitive.

What has City got to do with FSG failing to invest properly in centre backs in 20-21 or midfield players this season. What has City got to do with scuppering any chances of a competitive season by pretending we were signing Bellingham and then pulling out.

What has City got to do with FSG wanting to destroy European football with a closed league that would allow them to invest less and earn even more.

It should be about being the best team you can possibly be whilst staying within FFP. Instead with FSG it is about being the richest owners you can be without taking any risk. Yet there will still be hordes willing to defend that profiteering.

Shame on them and shame on the people willing to defend their policy of putting so little in whilst looking for billions in profit when they finally cash in. Suppose that is City's fault as well.

That's a new low - even for this thread.

You haven't answered my original point. You said we 'stopped signing players in 2019', and I gave you a list of 9 players signed since then (that cost us around £300m), three who played on Sunday (two that scored), two of them were on the bench, and two would probably have been playing if they weren't injured.

So did we really stop signing players in 2019, or have we spent almost £300m - whilst extending contracts and increasing wages.

Do you think City's dominance is because of how we're run as a club, or because of how they are run? Which of those two viewpoints is most likely to be correct, given what's come to light over recent years, and the confirmation of what everyone has suspected for almost a decade now.

If you genuinely think the reason City have won 5 of the last 6 titles (and why we've not won more under Jurgen) is all down to our owners, then you're just ignoring reality.

I can give you 115 reasons why City have everything to do with why we've only won one league title with Jurgen and this group of players.

But whilst they've been cheating for 15 years, distorting the market, and laundering billions through fake companies to spend on players, you've been very (very) busy ranting on every possible thread, picking random arguments with dozens of posters who dare suggest we're being run sensibly, and going on about everything from Redbird to Dejan Lovren to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

You sound like a fan of a Tour De France Team complaining why they were unable to compete with Lance Armstrong for 7 years, constantly moaning about how they should've spent more on better riders or bikes, when the problem is staring you in the face.

[Eeyore]

That's a new low - even for this thread.

I think this is probably the lowest point of this thread.

Thiago, Jota, Tsimikas, Konate, Carvalho, Ramsay ,  Diaz, Nunez, Gakpo - all playing their part in either winning the League, FA Cup, League Cup, and almost winning the quadruple.

I mean imagine claiming that four players who weren't even at the club played a part in winning trophies. Even more bizarrely claiming that Nunez played a part in almost winning the quadruple. Did you miss the fact that he scored home and away against us for Benfica as well as having two goals ruled out at Anfield. Goals that would have resulted in us going out on away goals. Instead of helping us to a quadruple he very nearly derailed it.

You haven't answered my original point. You said we 'stopped signing players in 2019', and I gave you a list of 9 players signed since then (that cost us around £300m), three who played on Sunday (two that scored), two of them were on the bench, and two would probably have been playing if they weren't injured.

So did we really stop signing players in 2019, or have we spent almost £300m - whilst extending contracts and increasing wages.

Yes we stopped signing players in 2019. The only incomings in the summer were Adrian as backup keeper and two kids for the U23's in Elliott and van den Berg. We spent £6-7m and offloaded 4 senior players plus the likes of Kent and Allan and brought in £40m.

I would say that was the definition of stopping signing players. That was the point at which for me FSG patted themselves on the back and said well that's the fans off our back, let's get the club to buy us some infrastructure.

That year's accounts make interesting reading. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00035668/filing-history



Instead of adding to a squad that was palpably thin at that point. We paid FSG £20.6m of the intercompany loan back and repaid the majority of the bank debt. The club repaid £53.4m of debt in one season.



That season we made a pre tax profit of £42m which combined with the previous season made a profit of £169m over two seasons. We made a profit of £45m plus £15m in post-balance sheet activities on player registration disposals.

So where did the money go, well that is easy.



We used our revenues to repay FSG for the inter-company loan, almost wiped out bank debt AND poured money into the training ground.

As for signing players in later seasons. So what, that is what teams do. The issue is despite taking a season out and banking the money we have still spent far less than our rivals. What we did in essence was stop running allowed everyone else to catch up and then when we started running again, we ran at a slower pace than everyone else. No wonder we finished 5th.

Do you think City's dominance is because of how we're run as a club, or because of how they are run? Which of those two viewpoints is most likely to be correct, given what's come to light over recent years, and the confirmation of what everyone has suspected for almost a decade now.

If you genuinely think the reason City have won 5 of the last 6 titles (and why we've not won more under Jurgen) is all down to our owners, then you're just ignoring reality.

I can give you 115 reasons why City have everything to do with why we've only won one league title with Jurgen and this group of players.

But whilst they've been cheating for 15 years, distorting the market, and laundering billions through fake companies to spend on players, you've been very (very) busy ranting on every possible thread, picking random arguments with dozens of posters who dare suggest we're being run sensibly, and going on about everything from Redbird to Dejan Lovren to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

You sound like a fan of a Tour De France Team complaining why they were unable to compete with Lance Armstrong for 7 years, constantly moaning about how they should've spent more on better riders or bikes, when the problem is staring you in the face.

Sorry, but I am a Liverpool fan and what concerns me is WHAT WE DO. How we spend our revenues, How an increase in equity that is cashed out to RedBird is spent.

Your faux outrage at City, your whataboutery, and screaming Look at them, look at them does not change how badly Liverpool Football Club has been run over the last three or four years.

Everyone knows what City have done, everyone is appalled by it. No one wants a nation-state or a Sugar Daddy, no matter how much you try and deflect, so why not stick to the actual topic of the thread which is FSG.

The problem with screaming blue murder about City is that FSG were quite happy to jump into bed with them in the ESL.

[PaleBlueDot]

That's a new low - even for this thread.

You haven't answered my original point. You said we 'stopped signing players in 2019', and I gave you a list of 9 players signed since then (that cost us around £300m), three who played on Sunday (two that scored), two of them were on the bench, and two would probably have been playing if they weren't injured.

So did we really stop signing players in 2019, or have we spent almost £300m - whilst extending contracts and increasing wages.

Do you think City's dominance is because of how we're run as a club, or because of how they are run? Which of those two viewpoints is most likely to be correct, given what's come to light over recent years, and the confirmation of what everyone has suspected for almost a decade now.

If you genuinely think the reason City have won 5 of the last 6 titles (and why we've not won more under Jurgen) is all down to our owners, then you're just ignoring reality.

I can give you 115 reasons why City have everything to do with why we've only won one league title with Jurgen and this group of players.

But whilst they've been cheating for 15 years, distorting the market, and laundering billions through fake companies to spend on players, you've been very (very) busy ranting on every possible thread, picking random arguments with dozens of posters who dare suggest we're being run sensibly, and going on about everything from Redbird to Dejan Lovren to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

You sound like a fan of a Tour De France Team complaining why they were unable to compete with Lance Armstrong for 7 years, constantly moaning about how they should've spent more on better riders or bikes, when the problem is staring you in the face.

Whilst I don't agree with everything Al says there are a lot of people who comes to FSG's defence just for the sake of it. The question is right what does us spending 300m since 2019 have to do with City? Do you think 300m is a lot over the 7 transfer windows since 2019?

Our net spend since we won the Champions League in 2019 is ~95 million. Over 7 windows that's ~13.5 million per window. Regardless of what Al says or what City do it's not enough from FSG. I'm tired of hearing the bollocks that "but we have spent look at Nunez look at Gakpo we are spending just wrong places etc etc".

The table accurately reflects the investment we have put into transfers.

[Draex]

Whilst I don't agree with everything Al says there are a lot of people who comes to FSG's defence just for the sake of it. The question is right what does us spending 300m since 2019 have to do with City? Do you think 300m is a lot over the 7 transfer windows since 2019?

Our net spend since we won the Champions League in 2019 is ~95 million. Over 7 windows that's ~13.5 million per window. Regardless of what Al says or what City do it's not enough from FSG. I'm tired of hearing the bollocks that "but we have spent look at Nunez look at Gakpo we are spending just wrong places etc etc".

The table accurately reflects the investment we have put into transfers.

Again, why don't you add up our transfers and wage commitments. Looking at "net spend" is possibly the worst possible way of evaluating how a club spends its money.

[blert596]

Again, why don't you add up our transfers and wage commitments. Looking at "net spend" is possibly the worst possible way of evaluating how a club spends its money.

probably because thats not like for like. When we compare our net spend to others net spend we compare it as that. Not net spend plus wages. Do you think our net spend plus wages is bigger than say Citys equivalent.

All teams have wages to be paid. We dont know what they are but we do have a good indication of net spend.

[Ma Vie en Rouge]

What I don't understand is what the long term planning was like. We've committed big wages to aging players to retain them. Ok, that's a reasonable choice, and a lot of them are still producing the goods. But those in charge of overall strategy must have seen that we were heading towards a situation where lots of players were reaching their twilight years at once, and others (Keita!) were simply never going to give us what we needed on the pitch often enough. So what was the plan?

The story was that Bellingham was the plan. He was going to revitalise our midfield and on we'd go. But even if we signed him, Henderson and Thiago were heading past, or already past their prime, Milner was retiring or moving on at 37, Keita needed selling or (as it turned out) letting go for nothing, ditto Ox. The only surprise in it all was Fabinho moving like a 50 year old and losing all confidence to boot. There wasn't exactly a surfeit of riches for Bellingham to tie together. We'd have needed another couple of midfielders the season after signing him at the very latest. So what was that even all about?

We tied up wages, held onto aging players, and signed no one fresh and now we're all meant to be surprised that it's pretty fucked? I don't understand what the thinking was, at any point. Was Klopp meant to get one more great season in, then watch us decline anyway? Was Bellingham going to hold together a collection of 30 somethings because signing him meant we couldn't afford anyone else for years? FSG own the club... they're meant to be smart strategists. But it's hard to see much strategy here beyond "Klopp will do things", isn't it?

[Draex]

probably because thats not like for like. When we compare our net spend to others net spend we compare it as that. Not net spend plus wages. Do you think our net spend plus wages is bigger than say Citys equivalent.

All teams have wages to be paid. We dont know what they are but we do have a good indication of net spend.

Are we talking the legal wages City pay, or the ones off the books?

[PaleBlueDot]

Again, why don't you add up our transfers and wage commitments. Looking at "net spend" is possibly the worst possible way of evaluating how a club spends its money.

Regardless we have the commercial revenue to comfortably deal with a higher transfer budget and wages, but we operate differently under these owners. They do not put a penny of their own money in. They are focused on increasing the value of Liverpool Football Club to line their pockets, not for our success on the pitch (via trophies). Hence why our all our money is going into infrastructure and training ground improvements.

I'm not even anti FSG. I think they are very good businessmen and we happened to benefit slightly from their endeavors to line their pockets with the help of one of the best managers of our generation.

It's time people either;

A) Back FSG but revise their expectations of what our success on the pitch would look like or
B) Accept that if we want to compete for top honors we would need a different model or ownership.

(This does not mean sportwashing owners, believe it or not there is a middle ground that utilizes the club with one of the biggest revenues in the world to attain success on the pitch).

[ToneLa]

.

It's time people either;

A) Back FSG but revise their expectations of what our success on the pitch would look like or
B) Accept that if we want to compete for top honors we would need a different model or ownership.

(This does not mean sportwashing owners, believe it or not there is a middle ground that utilizes the club with one of the biggest revenues in the world to attain success on the pitch).

C) some option that makes real change. Not just this empty dialogue on this thread. Ticket walkouts, boycotts... DIRECT action like we have done before. Alternately, get on with your life if you're content

Words are cheap, no?

[classycarra]

C) some option that makes real change. Not just this empty dialogue on this thread. Ticket walkouts, boycotts... DIRECT action like we have done before. Alternately, get on with your life if you're content

Words are cheap, no?

Why you making it seem like this hasn't happened before?

These have been organised before - and succeeded in their goals - when FSGs actions have caused a bit more consternation beyond people's subjective views on the nitty gritty of the clubs accounts (and the effects on LFC's budget) and more into the realms of mainstream supporter interest.

Supporters have mobilised in person and online, and have made themselves heard elsewhere,  succeeding in amassing a groundswell to successfully counter FSGs efforts to raise ticket prices, to claim public money to furlough low paid club staff, to join a breakaway European Super League (with a number of sportswashers plus some of Europe's bigger clubs).

You dismiss LFC supporters with your 'talk is cheap' line, and downplay many recent examples of successful direct action when supporters have got together and successfully lobbied to change the minds of our billionaire venture capitalist owners - I can't say I can relate to why you'd denigrate that. Of course there's even greater successes achieved by our supporters, which paved the way to FSG being able to buy LFC

[Eeyore]

Again, why don't you add up our transfers and wage commitments. Looking at "net spend" is possibly the worst possible way of evaluating how a club spends its money.

It really isn't.

A lack of investment in refreshing the squad means two things the average age of the squad increases and players' contracts get shorter. That creates a vicious circle in which you simply have to keep giving huge contracts to players past their best.

You then don't have the funds to buy younger, hungrier players on lower wages and the vicious circle continues. That is what has happened to the club over the last few years. You can't moan about a high wage bill when we chose to go down that path. A path exacerbated by risk-averse owners giving out performance bonus-based contracts.

That is why so many of us were upset about the lack of investment in 2019. It basically condemned us to a vicious circle when investment in transfers could have led to a virtuous circle. When you invest when you are on top it puts you into a commanding position.

Bringing in younger hungrier players on cheaper wages a year or two earlier than you need them means you don't have to pay older players over the odds for years of their careers when they are in decline. It means you can offload them for significant fees. That is what creates a virtuous circle. Continually refreshing the squad has multiple effects it lowers the age of the squad, it lowers the wage bill, it generates cash for the transfer budget and above all it avoids a huge expensive rebuild without CL revenues.

The issue is that when we were on top FSG decided not to do that. They put the transfer handbrake on and even worse they spent that money increasing the value of their investment. In 2019 we paid down £52m of debt with £20m of that going directly to FSG and we poured money into the training ground. 

[ToneLa]

Why you making it seem like this hasn't happened before?

These have been organised before - and succeeded in their goals - when FSGs actions have caused a bit more consternation beyond people's subjective views on the nitty gritty of the clubs accounts (and the effects on LFC's budget) and more into the realms of mainstream supporter interest.

Yeah I know

I am pointing out they've stopped

If you take this thread for the always bumped nightmare it is you'd think another protest would be inevitable

So back to what I said: words are cheap

Step up or step off

Edit: I am available for baby sitting jobs

[classycarra]

Yeah I know

I am pointing out they've stopped

If you take this thread for the always bumped nightmare it is you'd think another protest would be inevitable

So back to what I said: words are cheap

Step up or step off

Think you're probably overextrapolating from this thread mate if you're thinking a protest is on the cards.

But if you think people who think FSG could do better need to act on it, it seems odd that you'd want them to cease their dialogue to try to bring people aboard - that's how movements work, on the back of communication.

Unlike you I don't think a protest is on the way, nor should it be necessarily. I can't speak for anyone thinking along those lines, but my sense from RAWK and my supporter friends who are less online is that the number of people offering FSG their unwavering support with no notes/critique is significantly lower now than it was this time last year (where the same was true last year too). I also don't encounter the zealous support for FSG that's seen on here (albeit from a loud minority) among friends or at matches, though I can't draw conclusions from that.

I would say I don't think FSG have the goodwill capital going for them at the moment that they did when they tried to further rinse matchgoing supporters on ticket prices a few years back. Take a look at the ticketing subforum too if you want to see the view of matchgoing fans on the minimal make up of general entry and season tickets from the new Annie Road expansion. Maybe you're right that a groundswell might build, but I reckon it'd take a significant misstep to light the touchpaper to set that off

[ToneLa]

Think you're probably overextrapolating from this thread mate if you're thinking a protest is on the cards.

But if you think people who think FSG could do better need to act on it, it seems odd that you'd want them to cease their dialogue to try to bring people aboard - that's how movements work, on the back of communication.

More Focus the dialogue. I am lurking this thread lately and it is so circular. I also see it bumped at like 9am Sundays haha. So is it empty talk or is it going somewhere?

Unlike you I don't think a protest is on the way, nor should it be necessarily. I can't speak for anyone thinking along those lines, but my sense from RAWK and my supporter friends who are less online is that the number of people offering FSG their unwavering support with no notes/critique is significantly lower now than it was this time last year (where the same was true last year too). I also don't encounter the zealous support for FSG that's seen on here (albeit from a loud minority) among friends or at matches, though I can't draw conclusions from that.

I would say I don't think FSG have the goodwill capital going for them at the moment that they did when they tried to further rinse matchgoing supporters on ticket prices a few years back. Take a look at the ticketing subforum too if you want to see the view of matchgoing fans on the minimal make up of general entry and season tickets from the new Annie Road expansion. Maybe you're right that a groundswell might build, but I reckon it'd take a significant misstep to light the touchpaper to set that off

This is fair

We are waiting for the straw to break the camels back

I don't think it would be a bad outcome for FSG to remain as they are - discontent would grow. It would force our hand. I guess I am looking for a binary point

People live in this thread
I see it as a sort of sacrosanct area of our support that when push comes to shove you can't mess around - have always loved that side of us, especially under H and G

What I am saying is the activity suggests more than happens. I get it, it is a forum 

When I switch offline - massively recommended - FSG seem to be just There

I guuuess I have concluded we are more anti FSG than pro - I've had my own ticket woes and like little support,  but once you take ' we need to buy a midfielder our owners are too tight' I think that tilts the balance.

While I don't see a realistic alternative I do not believe in settling for less. You being trapped in something unhappy is still being trapped.

The love and lore of our football club is derision of businessmen right back to Shankly and I think all dialogue is healthy

But I don"t see it here
I think a fair few people who are neither shills in either direction don't get it

So why do I post?

Let me know when there's a march or a walkout
I've got no points to score.

You have a number in me.

Until then it seems a bit remote.

So,

Think you're probably overextrapolating from this thread mate if you're thinking a protest is on the cards.

Yes  I find it unusual to live with some of the unhappinesses that would seem to drive this thread

It ain't that bad

But it isn't enough either

That's a shite state of affairs to be in for what our club is meant to be but I do have faith in our support to react accordingly

...discuss it to death first mind 

[Dave D]

Yeah I know

I am pointing out they've stopped

If you take this thread for the always bumped nightmare it is you'd think another protest would be inevitable

So back to what I said: words are cheap

Step up or step off

Edit: I am available for baby sitting jobs

Good idea, protests might work. What would you suggest? Holding up a few banners at the ground probably doesn't cut it these days. From experience we know we'd have to bring it to their doorstep. Hound them at their various business? their homes? target their families? perhaps fenway park? "Internet terrorism" I think Tom Hicks called it. Very effective.

Well done for putting the suggestion out there.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

That's a new low - even for this thread.

You haven't answered my original point. You said we 'stopped signing players in 2019', and I gave you a list of 9 players signed since then (that cost us around £300m), three who played on Sunday (two that scored), two of them were on the bench, and two would probably have been playing if they weren't injured.

So did we really stop signing players in 2019, or have we spent almost £300m - whilst extending contracts and increasing wages.

Do you think City's dominance is because of how we're run as a club, or because of how they are run? Which of those two viewpoints is most likely to be correct, given what's come to light over recent years, and the confirmation of what everyone has suspected for almost a decade now.

If you genuinely think the reason City have won 5 of the last 6 titles (and why we've not won more under Jurgen) is all down to our owners, then you're just ignoring reality.

I can give you 115 reasons why City have everything to do with why we've only won one league title with Jurgen and this group of players.

But whilst they've been cheating for 15 years, distorting the market, and laundering billions through fake companies to spend on players, you've been very (very) busy ranting on every possible thread, picking random arguments with dozens of posters who dare suggest we're being run sensibly, and going on about everything from Redbird to Dejan Lovren to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

You sound like a fan of a Tour De France Team complaining why they were unable to compete with Lance Armstrong for 7 years, constantly moaning about how they should've spent more on better riders or bikes, when the problem is staring you in the face.

A new low he says & then he brings up Lance Armstrong 

just to quickly try to head you off at the pass, let me point out that this view is entirely LFC-centric - and not mutually exclusive to anything else outside the club - no action from any of the other 91 league teams in this country affects this viewpoint.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Are we talking the legal wages City pay, or the ones off the books?

Why are you ignoring the question about our position in the deloitte money league ?

[Egyptian36]

I have zero respect for people who are desperately defending FSG. They are business men who will make 3 billions profit yet won't invest 1m to help Klopp.

[Kop Kings]

I have zero respect for people who are desperately defending FSG. They are business men who will make 3 billions profit yet won't invest 1m to help Klopp.

It's incredibly odd, I agree

[tubby]

I have zero respect for people who are desperately defending FSG. They are business men who will make 3 billions profit yet won't invest 1m to help Klopp.

Understanding how FSG operate and their business model =/= desperately defending FSG.  And this is from someone who thinks they should be getting their wallet out and giving Klopp more transfer funds.

[I've been a good boy]

I have zero respect for people who are desperately defending FSG. They are business men who will make 3 billions profit yet won't invest 1m to help Klopp.

They come across as FSG fans rather than Liverpool fans. If they sacked Klopp tomorrow, they would find reasons to justify it.

[Draex]

They come across as FSG fans rather than Liverpool fans. If they sacked Klopp tomorrow, they would find reasons to justify it.

Nope stop making shit up. Such an entrenched view that anyone trying to have a reasonable debate gets called a shill or anti-Klopp.

Fsg need to back Klopp this window, said it many times.

[thaddeus]

They come across as FSG fans rather than Liverpool fans. If they sacked Klopp tomorrow, they would find reasons to justify it.

For me there is some room for nuance in that we could have far worse owners:
- sportswashers like Man City or Newcastle
- incompetent sugar daddies like Everton or Chelsea
- parasites that bought the club with debt leveraged against the club like Man U or Burnley
- no business acumen or wealth to grow the club beyond what it already is like Norwich or Palace

FSG bought the club at a bargain price and whenever they sell will make a fortune.  They have overseen a very successful decade for the club (in spite of Man City's stacked deck), invested in the stadium and training facilities, and have grown our commercial side massively (something David Moores never really managed to do).  They've also overseen some massive PR own goals and it feels like things are starting to pull apart at the seams.

I'd give them 7/10 as owners.  If they were to sell I wouldn't necessarily miss them but I'd be wary of who took stewardship of our club next.

[TepidT2O]

Or did our wages shoot up because a risk-averse organisation went for a hugely performance-based salary structure and then had their fingers burnt when Klopp massively overachieved?

As for the structure they put in place it was an absolute shambles prior to Klopp. We had a situation in which the TC and Rodgers were taking turns a piece selecting players that simply didn't fit. I mean what kind of shambolic system spends massive transfer fees on Bobby and Benteke in the same window. The system was so shambolic Rodgers and the TC were slaughtering each other in the media. The very definition of airing your dirty laundry in public.


This is just bizarre. It is as if other teams don't have analysts, scouts and recruitment professionals. You are praising the recruitment team for actually doing their job. That is how it should be with a DoF or Coach utilising the skills of the recruitment team.

The existing structure was an absolute shitshow. Klopp didn't just elevate it he made it work. Look at the way we pissed away the Suarez money. We brought in players like Balotelli, Markovic and laughably Rickie Lambert for a combined £45m.

Hang on there a minute bugger lugs

Our wages did shoot up, but so did our revenue and our success.

No club could win this argument.  Give players a very high basic salary and it’s wasteful and if you don’t qualify for the top honours, then you’ve got a real issue.

You yourself said that FSG weren’t interested in winning. 

But to me this is by far the lesser of two evils. It is incentivises success whilst minimising risk.  It is responsible ownership!  It also  incentivises young hungry players

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Nope stop making shit up. Such an entrenched view that anyone trying to have a reasonable debate gets called a shill or anti-Klopp.

Fsg need to back Klopp this window, said it many times.

But accusing people who rightly have a problem with what FSG have been doing of wanting to take oil or state money leads to a reasonable debate ?

[Egyptian36]

Nope stop making shit up. Such an entrenched view that anyone trying to have a reasonable debate gets called a shill or anti-Klopp.

Fsg need to back Klopp this window, said it many times.

That's the main issue, they won't. Even if they allowed Klopp to have a bigger budget than usual this summer they will balance it the next two years. Even if we drop to 9th next season they won't. They bought the club for very cheap yet now looking for someone to invest and agree of their crazy valuation instead of investing themselves.

[Eeyore]

Hang on there a minute bugger lugs

Haven't been called that in years.

Our wages did shoot up, but so did our revenue and our success.

Unfortunately, we also structured our transfers with lots of addons payable to the selling club. 

No club could win this argument.  Give players a very high basic salary and it’s wasteful and if you don’t qualify for the top honours, then you’ve got a real issue.

You yourself said that FSG weren’t interested in winning. 

But to me this is by far the lesser of two evils. It is incentivises success whilst minimising risk.  It is responsible ownership!  It also  incentivises young hungry players

The problem though is that people prefer certainty. So if you want them to accept performance-related bonuses for winning things then you have to make those bonuses substantial.

Say you were a school teacher for instance, outlandish I know. You are offered 100% of your salary upfront or you are offered 80% plus a bonus based on your school finishing top of an Ofsted table. Given how unlikely it is for that to happen you would want an absolutely huge bonus for the second option to be viable. 

[Eeyore]

Fsg need to back Klopp this window, said it many times.

Probably every window for the last 5 years. Which is the issue. How many last chances do FSG get.

What a lot of posters mean is if they don't back Klopp this time, I will defend them to the hilt and demand everyone gives them one more chance.

Rinse and repeat.

[Draex]

Probably every window for the last 5 years. Which is the issue. How many last chances do FSG get.

What a lot of posters mean is if they don't back Klopp this time, I will defend them to the hilt and demand everyone gives them one more chance.

Rinse and repeat.

No that’s not what it means, you just twist shit for your own unhealthy warped agenda.

I’ll be clear, if FSG fail to back Klopp this window they have failed him and the club.