Topic: FSG discussion thread

[PaulF]

Yeah. I think they miscalculated. I think most would feel we'd make top four with this squad. A combo of bad luck with injuries and Newcastle having a great first half of the season scuppered that. Arsenal and utd being stronger than many anticipated too . How much would we have needed to spend to get top 4 though. Bear in mind we couldn't predict the I juries or the fabiniho drop off.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Yeah. I think they miscalculated. I think most would feel we'd make top four with this squad. A combo of bad luck with injuries and Newcastle having a great first half of the season scuppered that. Arsenal and utd being stronger than many anticipated too . How much would we have needed to spend to get top 4 though. Bear in mind we couldn't predict the I juries or the fabiniho drop off.

I blame Alil, we cannot expect FSG to foresee a season where he fails to score..

[farawayred]

Yeah. I think they miscalculated. I think most would feel we'd make top four with this squad. A combo of bad luck with injuries and Newcastle having a great first half of the season scuppered that. Arsenal and utd being stronger than many anticipated too . How much would we have needed to spend to get top 4 though. Bear in mind we couldn't predict the I juries or the fabiniho drop off.

There is no question about their miscalculation, I think most would agree. The issue I have is that they targeted the CL participation, not winning the league. We could have strengthened from a position of strength, not waiting for legs to go without any replenishment. If they did, CL would have been certain,  we could have also won a thing or two more.

[Lubeh]

TBF if we did not have the perma Crocks in Thiago and Ox we may well have had enough, i think the pretty much 2/3 full seasons without a break, our own fault due to the success the previous season when we nearly won it all, may have had something to do with it. plus we dont really  play the lazy Italian/Spanish type football legs "go" abit younger I dare say if hendo etc went to Italy /Spain they would be ok  as its not as fast paced.

Either way new players next season coming in should help alot kinda need to get rid of more "legs gone" players ,  only one I guess who may stay would be Hendo, but i think he will be a  bit part player next season with maybe VVD captain most of the time.

[farawayred]

I agree with the statement but disagree with it’s the sentiment, lubeh. The issues with Keita and Ox were known for years, and Thiago too. Yet we held on to them (not Thiago, he’s the only one worth holding to). Where were the replacements? We kept our powder dry for not winning trophies, just making sure we had more powder or next summer. Rinse and repeat. No ambition for trophies.

[FLRed67]

Injuries cost us. Diogoal most of all.  And then Thiago.

Keita and Ox had nothing to do with it.

The less said about Keita, the better. A shambles from beginning to end. Starting with poor due diligence and background research. 100 million plus down the tubes.

[Egyptian36]

Yeah. I think they miscalculated. I think most would feel we'd make top four with this squad. A combo of bad luck with injuries and Newcastle having a great first half of the season scuppered that. Arsenal and utd being stronger than many anticipated too . How much would we have needed to spend to get top 4 though. Bear in mind we couldn't predict the I juries or the fabiniho drop off.

Even Klopp said he expected this to be normal season meaning we will be in the top 4. It's a wake up call for everyone at the club. They thought we are too good not to drop to 5th.

[Eeyore]

Even Klopp said he expected this to be normal season meaning we will be in the top 4. It's a wake up call for everyone at the club. They thought we are too good not to drop to 5th.

The thing is it was abundantly clear way before the summer window shut that we were not going to challenge for the title. I don't think it was complacency but a lack of ambition. We should have been looking to kick on. Instead, the owners decided to have a holding season and wait for Bellingham.

As if we had some divine right to automatically get top 4.

[xbugawugax]

Even Klopp said he expected this to be normal season meaning we will be in the top 4. It's a wake up call for everyone at the club. They thought we are too good not to drop to 5th.

not sure that is arrogance or confidence. After the shambles this season and who knows how the new signings will perform. Or will there even be the number of signings that he is begging for. Wasted a couple of good years with the best manager we had unfortunately.

We should just celebrate being in CL like arsenal under the wenger years while balancing the books

[newterp]

Don't forget the outrageous preseason travel coupled with the crazy grueling summer camp. For a team that played 63 games.

[farawayred]

To me the ambition should be competing for the league title. CL will come naturally with that. “Reach for the stars, and you’ll touch the moon.” We were at the stars when we decided “eh, fuck it, the moon’s enough”.

It boils my blood when I think that with just a tad extra investment we could have had 2-3 more major trophies, despite the cheats.

[harleydanger]

I think Klopp had a team that came within 15 minutes and maybe the best GK performance in a CL final in history of being the greatest side to ever play in England and given his tendency, to a fault, to back his players and his belief in continuity over change didn’t go sending emails at 2am about investment and was probably quite happy to go again with what he had.

Under FSG, in an environment of nation state level investment from other clubs, the club is the healthiest and most successful and most fun it’s ever been since I was 8yo. Every trophy, upgraded ground, it feels like a failure if we’re not in a CL final every two years. I’d prefer that to oil money and quadruples every year because earning it is way more fun than buying it.

Better the devil you know and all that.

[farawayred]

^^^ All true, mate, 100% agree. But with a little more investment, Klopp could have taken titles and Guardiola could have done nothing about that, despite the wealth of a state backing him. He can only put 11 players on the field, and we would have battered them.

Imagine what that would have done to the sports washers - “doesn’t matter how much you cheat, you can’t always win.” That may have discouraged the Saudi Arabia bid for the barcodes.

[keyop]

The squad is fucking ruined. It is wrecked. I'm not anti FSG like Al is, but lets not pretend that we're not fucked right now cos we are.

Eh? 

Our last 18 league games: P18 W11 D5 L2 F45 A19 GD+26 Pts 38

There's no doubt the first half of the season was hugely inconsistent, with some poor performances and results.

But since 4th February we've lost only 2 league games in almost half a season, scoring 45 goals, and averaging almost 2.2 points per game.

Even during our poor first half of the season, we beat City, put 9 past Bournemouth, 9 past Rangers over 2 legs, and beat Newcastle, Spurs, Napoli, and Ajax (twice).

Our sloppy performances against the likes of Forest, Wolves, Brentford, Fulham, Brighton and Palace are what has made this season such a struggle - which is partly due to tired legs and minds after a 62 game season, plus more bad luck with injuries, and a sudden drop in form for many of our best players.

Since our upturn in form in early February, we've put 7 past Utd, scored 6 against Leeds, 4 against Spurs, and kept 9 clean sheets, whilst finding a new role for Trent, integrating Curtis back into the side, and getting back to beating the lesser teams again - with wins over Wolves, Leeds, Forest, West Ham, Fulham, Leicester and Brentford.

When taking the above points into account, saying things like 'This squad is fucking ruined', or 'It's wrecked' sounds not only silly, but completely inaccurate.

Midfield investment is of course long overdue, but let's not forget we've spent over £300m on players since summer 2019, yet only £20m on midfielders (an elite, but injury prone 29 year old).

The drop off in Fabinho's form, Hendo's ageing legs, plus the inability of either Ox or Keita to find consistent, injury-free form have also not helped us. Nor has Bajetic's injury - just when he was emerging as a genuine regular first team option.

This season has been affected by a range of different factors, but there are signs in recent months that a change in team shape (and a few new additions) could breathe new life into a squad that's nowhere near as bad as many doom-mongers are making out.

[classycarra]

Midfield investment is of course long overdue, but let's not forget we've spent over £300m on players since summer 2019, yet only £20m on midfielders (an elite, but injury prone 29 year old).

Your biases stick out like a sore thumb - makes it very hard to take the rest of your posts seriously when they are so prominently on display in most posts.

People rail on net spend conversations on here, and it's limitations, but at least they aren't as disingenuous as your points using gross spend. I'll quote jackwards post from last time you made this exact same point (remember when you told Al he'd need to relace 5 keyboards cos he's constantly repeating himself?)

What do you mean ‘bang on about net spend’? …. Net spend is the amount of money invested in the team in fees

This entire post is disingenuous and the argument is dangerous - any idea that the manager has had the amount of resources needed to compete with the teams he’s supposed to compete is utter fucking claptrap

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=353490.msg18706177#msg18706177

Don't think I'll ever grasp the motivation to opt to present information in a way that tries to admonish our venture capitalist billionaire owners, while tarnishing the resourcefulness of our legendary manager
You nailed it (from my point of view) when you said this of Al:

It's just an utterly bizarre way to support a football club

[Coolie High]

Your biases stick out like a sore thumb - makes it very hard to take the rest of your posts seriously when they are so prominently on display in most posts.

People rail on net spend conversations on here, and it's limitations, but at least they aren't as disingenuous as your points using gross spend. I'll quote jackwards post from last time you made this exact same point (remember when you told Al he'd need to relace 5 keyboards cos he's constantly repeating himself?)
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=353490.msg18706177#msg18706177

Don't think I'll ever grasp the motivation to opt to present information in a way that tries to admonish our venture capitalist billionaire owners, while tarnishing the resourcefulness of our legendary manager

Spot on.

[harleydanger]

^^^ All true, mate, 100% agree. But with a little more investment, Klopp could have taken titles and Guardiola could have done nothing about that, despite the wealth of a state backing him. He can only put 11 players on the field, and we would have battered them.

Imagine what that would have done to the sports washers - “doesn’t matter how much you cheat, you can’t always win.” That may have discouraged the Saudi Arabia bid for the barcodes.

Don’t think extra investment would’ve got us more to be honest.

We’re talking a Rodri handball and a 5mm goal line clearance and everyone would be saying “what does pep have to do to catch Klopp?

[Eeyore]

Don’t think extra investment would’ve got us more to be honest.

We’re talking a Rodri handball and a 5mm goal line clearance and everyone would be saying “what does pep have to do to catch Klopp?

I just love this fucked up thinking.

Sorry, but we can't pretend that City has only won titles because they have overspent and then pretend spending more money would not have improved us, especially in terms of squad depth.

If the Rodri handball was given then Everton would still have had to score the penalty and then hold out for the win. Same with the game at the Etihad, going ahead in that game doesn't mean we would have won it.

We need to look at ourselves and think what could have been if we had more options of the bench and if we could have rotated more.

[ianburns252]

Don’t think extra investment would’ve got us more to be honest.

We’re talking a Rodri handball and a 5mm goal line clearance and everyone would be saying “what does pep have to do to catch Klopp?

I doubt it would have made a tangible difference against the top teams - our first 11 is as good as any other

It would though have free players up to be better rested, hopefully reduced injury, and may have given us that extra option against the smaller teams who managed to grab a draw against us

It is impossible to quantify or say with certainty but I'd say it is highly likely it may have been worth a point or two (which don't forget could have a psychological impact on teams near us as we seem even more uncatchable in some of those 1 point here or there seasons)

[Eeyore]

I doubt it would have made a tangible difference against the top teams - our first 11 is as good as any other

It would though have free players up to be better rested, hopefully reduced injury, and may have given us that extra option against the smaller teams who managed to grab a draw against us

It is impossible to quantify or say with certainty but I'd say it is highly likely it may have been worth a point or two (which don't forget could have a psychological impact on teams near us as we seem even more uncatchable in some of those 1 point here or there seasons)

My thoughts exactly you have only to look at the difference Luis Diaz made to us in 21/22.

That ability to rotate and even more importantly bring real quality off the bench is so important in a tight title race. Look at the impact United's bench had in 08/09 or the paucity of options we had in 13/14 when we went a goal down to Chelsea.

[keyop]

Your biases stick out like a sore thumb - makes it very hard to take the rest of your posts seriously when they are so prominently on display in most posts.

People rail on net spend conversations on here, and it's limitations, but at least they aren't as disingenuous as your points using gross spend. I'll quote jackwards post from last time you made this exact same point (remember when you told Al he'd need to relace 5 keyboards cos he's constantly repeating himself?)
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=353490.msg18706177#msg18706177

Don't think I'll ever grasp the motivation to opt to present information in a way that tries to admonish our venture capitalist billionaire owners, while tarnishing the resourcefulness of our legendary manager
You nailed it (from my point of view) when you said this of Al:

As usual, you've completely avoided the entire point of my post, which was a response to someone who said our squad was 'fucking ruined' and 'wrecked'

Do you have any actual comments about the things I posted about this season? Or are you here to dissect the minutiae of semantics, and trawl through other people's post history to distract from what's actually being posted and discussed?

No-one on here is admonishing our owners or tarnishing Jurgen. That's just pure nonsense.

I don't think anyone cares about John Henry, FSG, or who our owners actually are. They care about what they do, and how they do it. And after decades of relative underachievement on and off the pitch, we're transformed as a club by every possible metric, and in a good place for future generations. All achieved honestly and by the rules, and without putting us in massive debt. All done whilst winning trophies, and up against clubs that are either cheating, or loading most of their transfer spend onto club debt, or winning nothing.

That's the yardstick I use for our owners - regardless of who they are. But feel free to post something that has no relevance to what I've just written 

[classycarra]

As usual, you've completely avoided the entire point of my post, which was a response to someone who said our squad was 'fucking ruined' and 'wrecked'

Do you have any actual comments about the things I posted about this season? Or are you here to dissect the minutiae of semantics, and trawl through other people's post history to distract from what's actually being posted and discussed?

Yep I wasn't interested in that person's hyperbolic venting. By the way I didn't trawl, I have a bizarrely good memory for random unimportant stuff so searched two words "net spend" and your post was the seond one there.

I wasn't trying to distract from anything. I was just continuing a conversation about our owners (and point out the role our biases play), and trying to point out that you might have been projecting a little in parts of that attack on Al the other day.

No-one on here is admonishing our owners or tarnishing Jurgen. That's just pure nonsense.

All I can say is that's how it read to me (and others) earlier in the year and yesterday.

I don't think anyone cares about John Henry, FSG, or who our owners actually are. They care about what they do, and how they do it.

so what you're saying is, you secretly want us to be sportswashed?
(I kid I kid, you can't have all the fun throwing this accusation!)

And after decades of relative underachievement on and off the pitch, we're transformed as a club by every possible metric, and in a good place for future generations. All achieved honestly and by the rules, and without putting us in massive debt. All done whilst winning trophies, and up against clubs that are either cheating, or loading most of their transfer spend onto club debt, or winning nothing.

That's the yardstick I use for our owners - regardless of who they are. But feel free to post something that has no relevance to what I've just written 

I don't disagree with your point on yardsticks here - their biggest achievement was breaking out of the new stadium narrative, and getting redevelopment moving - but I will play devil's advocate.

I remember another time when I said I struggled to relate to you - instead of it being about framing money spent to pretend Klopp has had huge resources like yesterday, it was about you framing FSG as "winning us the CL and PL". Did you ever refer to 2005 as being 'won by' David Moores? Or the 2001 treble, did he 'bring us that'? Or is it only in this recent era that under FSG ownership (perhaps as a rote response to posts critiquing FSG) that you've started to think in those terms?

This was what LFC won in his 16 years, for what it's worth:
1 CL, 1 UEFA/Europa Cup, 3 FA Cups, 3 League Cups, 1 Super Cup, 2 Charity Shields

Last point, but I note you saying we're in a great place for future generations, and not being under massive debt.
LFC debt under David Moores (at point of sale): £45mil
LFC debt under FSG (latest accounts): £146mil net*

*£71.4mil to FSG, £88mil to other debtors. So that's about £160mil debt (but this is only gross! It goes down about £14mil when including assets)

[mrantarctica]

Eh? 

Our last 18 league games: P18 W11 D5 L2 F45 A19 GD+26 Pts 38

This season has been affected by a range of different factors, but there are signs in recent months that a change in team shape (and a few new additions) could breathe new life into a squad that's nowhere near as bad as many doom-mongers are making out.

Exactly correct. The last 18 games was enough form, over a whole season, to get a champions league spot (likely at least 76 points, which was good enough for 3rd).

This is why I don't think the entire squad needs selling or replacing (in 1 window, mind  ). Often just bringing in a key player in various positions has a major effect on the players we already have. Particularly through April and May, we saw the effect of having just one CM in anywhere near 'good form' as Curtis played quite well and we saw an upturn in form of all of our midfielders to the extent that we went on a winning streak. I think finding out how to get the most out of Trent was a big part of our resurgence in form, as well as other players condition improving and perhaps also us playing slightly less frequent games as the season wore on.

Hopefully our technical staff will pinpoint where our personnel weaknesses are and the owners will back them to the hilt to remedy those in the transfer market. Although it might seem surprising to some, I think that we might see an entirely different season even if we sign only 2-3 new players as long as they are the right players and they fulfil the key needs of the team to progress.

[ToneLa]

Good Sunday morning everyone, are we all in a balanced and meditative mood?

 

[Mighty_Red]

We are always going to be in the position where every transfer has to be fully funded, so squad decisions have to be made at every turn. Barring a sportswasher, this will not change regardless of ownership but I'm hoping the timing of how things are things are paid back is tweaked.

The first issue is the recent strategy of only looking for big money signings, or youth. This Bellingham chase over the last year or so took our eye off the ball. We could've easily spent £20-30m on a 22/23 year that we could develop to become a Fabinho replacement but we went all in on trying to save money for the superstar.

This decision is mostly at the door of the Sporting director and the management (I.e. Ward and Jurgen). The fact that our SD had his head set of jumping out of the hotseat before he had eveb started is a big reason we didn't get all the decisions right.

Rigidity in spending is an underlying cause however, and I do not see any problem with spending a little more in a window to fix issues even if that means it has to be made up later but we haven't been allowed to do that by FSG. The reaction to seeing our issues in August and January were the reason we did not qualify for the CL - we could've easily have fixed this issue then. MacAllister mightve been attainable in August, probably for less than we will pay now.

One uncomfortable truth may be that it really doesn't matter to FSG if we miss out on the odd season of CL, if that means the wage and transfer budget goes down accordingly then that's no concern to them as the books will still be balanced.

Just hoping now that once Annie Road opens, we will have a bit more room to maneuvere in the market.

[classycarra]

Good Sunday morning everyone, are we all in a balanced and meditative mood?

 

it's a lovely morning

[Eeyore]

As usual, you've completely avoided the entire point of my post, which was a response to someone who said our squad was 'fucking ruined' and 'wrecked'

Let's not kid ourselves that the squad is in great shape. We have issues all over the park, plus age issues with a number of key players. For me, the key issue was allowing the famous front three plus Origi to all run their deals down. Resulting in only getting one pretty modest fee for one of the most potent attacks on the planet. There has been very little planning and we have ended up with a very unbalanced group of attacking players.

We have ended up with a very expensive group of forwards with four of them wanting to play down the middle or from the left and only Mo being able to play the right-sided attacking role.

The worst aspect of allowing four attackers to all run down their deals is that we have basically spent our entire budget over the last two seasons signing attackers. That has meant we have badly neglected other areas of the squad.

Again a breathtaking lack of planning means we have allowed Keita, Ox and Milner to leave on frees. With Thiago's deal running out next summer and Hendo being 34 at that time. We basically need 5 midfield players over the next couple of windows. With us unless highly unlikely to receive any fees to soften the blow.

So it is highly likely that any transfer fees we receive will go to sorting out the midfield mess. I mean how do you manage to lose Can, Gini, Milner, Keita and Ox and not receive a penny in transfer fees.

That then leaves us with VVD and Matip hitting 32 this summer and Gomez pretty much shot to pieces. So Ibou who has had niggling injury issues is our only real long-term option at centre-back. So we desperately need to start refreshing our centre-back situation. Or it will be another complete rebuild of a position that is required.

I mean if you were to name our best players then how many of them are 30 plus.

[tubby]

The unbalanced front line isn't due to FSG though, they don't pick the players we buy.

[killer-heels]

The unbalanced front line isn't due to FSG though, they don't pick the players we buy.

Yep. Nunez and Carvalho seem completely out of step for what we want in that position now. On the flip side it shows what fine margins we operate on.

[Eeyore]

We are always going to be in the position where every transfer has to be fully funded, so squad decisions have to be made at every turn. Barring a sportswasher, this will not change regardless of ownership but I'm hoping the timing of how things are things are paid back is tweaked.

The first issue is the recent strategy of only looking for big money signings, or youth. This Bellingham chase over the last year or so took our eye off the ball. We could've easily spent £20-30m on a 22/23 year that we could develop to become a Fabinho replacement but we went all in on trying to save money for the superstar.

Transfers only need to be fully funded if you allow your existing players to run down their deals. Look at Madrid who will have built a complete midfield for around £200m with Camavinga, Touchameni, Valverde and almost certainly Bellingham coming in for around £200m. That spending though has been offset by moving on the likes of Casamiro, Odegaard, Kovacic and Llorente for three-quarters of that outlay.

To be able to do that and gradually bring through younger players you actually need to have a decent transfer budget and above all be pro-active, bringing in players a year or two before you need them allows you to bed them in and crucially offload the players they replace.

This decision is mostly at the door of the Sporting director and the management (I.e. Ward and Jurgen). The fact that our SD had his head set of jumping out of the hotseat before he had eveb started is a big reason we didn't get all the decisions right.

Rigidity in spending is an underlying cause however, and I do not see any problem with spending a little more in a window to fix issues even if that means it has to be made up later but we haven't been allowed to do that by FSG. The reaction to seeing our issues in August and January were the reason we did not qualify for the CL - we could've easily have fixed this issue then. MacAllister mightve been attainable in August, probably for less than we will pay now.

One uncomfortable truth may be that it really doesn't matter to FSG if we miss out on the odd season of CL, if that means the wage and transfer budget goes down accordingly then that's no concern to them as the books will still be balanced.

Just hoping now that once Annie Road opens, we will have a bit more room to maneuvere in the market.

I am not sure you can blame the SD or Klopp though. For me the lack of planning is down to the way FSG operates.

This illustrates it perfectly for me. After the centre back debacle of 20/21 when we went into the season with only VVD, Matip and Gomez and then failed to bring in anyone until the last minute even though VVD and Gomez were out for the season.

This is what Klopp had to say.

" Klopp said before Liverpool's opening fixture against newly-promoted Norwich City.

"That was always the same. We can spend and are allowed to spent the money we earn. That's what we always did.

"This year we spent even before we earned money, on Ibrahima Konate, because after last season it was clear we cannot take any risks in this position at all."

How can you actually plan for the future when you have to sell before you buy. When you haven't got a clue what your budget is and whether you can strengthen or not. It is a shambolic way to run a club the size of LFC and for me a major contributory reason why both Edwards and Ward became fed up.

Then you get to the role of Gordon.

From Klopp. “We can have ideas, we can have plans but in the end he decides if we can do it or not,”

[ianburns252]

Yep I wasn't interested in that person's hyperbolic venting. By the way I didn't trawl, I have a bizarrely good memory for random unimportant stuff so searched two words "net spend" and your post was the seond one there.

I wasn't trying to distract from anything. I was just continuing a conversation about our owners (and point out the role our biases play), and trying to point out that you might have been projecting a little in parts of that attack on Al the other day. All I can say is that's how it read to me (and others) earlier in the year and yesterday. so what you're saying is, you secretly want us to be sportswashed?
(I kid I kid, you can't have all the fun throwing this accusation!)I don't disagree with your point on yardsticks here - their biggest achievement was breaking out of the new stadium narrative, and getting redevelopment moving - but I will play devil's advocate.

I remember another time when I said I struggled to relate to you - instead of it being about framing money spent to pretend Klopp has had huge resources like yesterday, it was about you framing FSG as "winning us the CL and PL". Did you ever refer to 2005 as being 'won by' David Moores? Or the 2001 treble, did he 'bring us that'? Or is it only in this recent era that under FSG ownership (perhaps as a rote response to posts critiquing FSG) that you've started to think in those terms?

This was what LFC won in his 16 years, for what it's worth:
1 CL, 1 UEFA/Europa Cup, 3 FA Cups, 3 League Cups, 1 Super Cup, 2 Charity Shields

Last point, but I note you saying we're in a great place for future generations, and not being under massive debt.
LFC debt under David Moores (at point of sale): £45mil
LFC debt under FSG (latest accounts): £146mil net*

*£71.4mil to FSG, £88mil to other debtors. So that's about £160mil debt (but this is only gross! It goes down about £14mil when including assets)

Only thing I'd argue on this is how we consider the levels of debt.

There are a number of options to consider with this but will take two (gearing ratio - total debt/equity - and debt ratio - debt/total assets)


For ease I'm going to use 2006 accounts as being the last full year under Moores and I will exclude intercompany debt as that is not debt that really impacts the club (no fixed repayment terms, could be relieved by owners etc)

                         2022                                  2006

Gearing             £88m/£202m = 0.44            £26m/£39m = 0.67

Debt                 £88m/£677m = 0.13             £26m/£142m = 0.18


So yes, debt is up around 3.5 times the monetary amount but its impact on the club as a business is much lower (lower the output of the calc the better it is in this case) so it isn't unfair to say it is in a great place on that basis.

[Eeyore]

The unbalanced front line isn't due to FSG though, they don't pick the players we buy.

FSG do pick the players though if they don't like the player then the deal doesn't get signed off. If they don't provide the funding players don't get signed. Because of the way we operate with a budget dependent on earnings then we can't plan long term and we basically are forced to sign who is available that summer.

We have had countless examples of that we have pulled out of deals for the likes of Werrner and Bellingham because the funds were not made available. Then you get us moving for Diaz because Porto were skint and Spurs moved for him. We signed Jota because Wolves were prepared to sell with very little in upfront payments. Then we signed Gakpo because PSV were skint and needed money.

For me we signed Nunez because we had allowed the front three to run down their deals and assumed Mo was off. Then you get deals for the likes of Shaqiri, Minamino and Carvalho because we could activate a clause and get a Moneyball signing below value.

Even this summer the Brighton player on our radar originally was Caicedo who would be a perfect fit for what we need. Then there is a bidding war with the likes of Arsenal and we opt to sign Mac Allister instead who just happens to have a clause we can activate.

So how many of the signings are a long-term plan put in place by the SD and Klopp and how many are just reactive signing to what is available for what FSG see as value. How many signings are pro-active long term planning and how many are determined by how much money the club has in the till at the time.

[tubby]

That's a massive reach, even for you.

[Eeyore]

Only thing I'd argue on this is how we consider the levels of debt.

There are a number of options to consider with this but will take two (gearing ratio - total debt/equity - and debt ratio - debt/total assets)


For ease I'm going to use 2006 accounts as being the last full year under Moores and I will exclude intercompany debt as that is not debt that really impacts the club (no fixed repayment terms, could be relieved by owners etc)

                         2022                                  2006

Gearing             £88m/£202m = 0.44            £26m/£39m = 0.67

Debt                 £88m/£677m = 0.13             £26m/£142m = 0.18


So yes, debt is up around 3.5 times the monetary amount but its impact on the club as a business is much lower (lower the output of the calc the better it is in this case) so it isn't unfair to say it is in a great place on that basis.

How much debt though has been hidden by the use of the revolver though? How much debt has been paid off too quickly and has affected our ability to operate at the correct level in the transfer market.

[classycarra]

Only thing I'd argue on this is how we consider the levels of debt.

There are a number of options to consider with this but will take two (gearing ratio - total debt/equity - and debt ratio - debt/total assets)


For ease I'm going to use 2006 accounts as being the last full year under Moores and I will exclude intercompany debt as that is not debt that really impacts the club (no fixed repayment terms, could be relieved by owners etc)

                         2022                                  2006

Gearing             £88m/£202m = 0.44            £26m/£39m = 0.67

Debt                 £88m/£677m = 0.13             £26m/£142m = 0.18


So yes, debt is up around 3.5 times the monetary amount but its impact on the club as a business is much lower (lower the output of the calc the better it is in this case) so it isn't unfair to say it is in a great place on that basis.

Thanks for bringing facts/evidence to the table mate, appreciate it (alongside it being your area - while it certainly isn't mine!). It's interesting to see the comparison done properly.

I was being a little facetious/tongue in cheek referencing the debt levels - purely to make a point on perception and the discourse around FSG (versus where we were before that - ignoring the G+H crooks).

I agree with your conclusion (and Keyop's) that it's in a solid position. Where I think I differ from the latter's point of view is that the greatest impact on our rude financial health is circumstantial to whoever owned the club at the time - it's largely the league's collective broadcasting deals blowing up that's done it.

[Eeyore]

That's a massive reach, even for you.

Not at all.

Jorg Schmadtke.

"Jurgen Klopp sets the priorities. We set him up with a team of data analysts, scouts and so on, so he can then choose from a list of players who he wants to work with. Then I'll deal with the transfers with the responsible departments in the club.And, in the end, the owners have to be satisfied with the investments. "

Klopp on Mike Gordon.

Klopp. “We can have ideas, we can have plans but in the end he decides if we can do it or not,”

That is not a SD or SD+Klopp being given a budget and being allowed to spend it and use a coherent strategy to build a side. That is FSG and in particular, Gordon micro-managing things and deciding whether each individual player is a good investment for FSG.

That is about having a fluid budget that is dependent on revenues and above all player sales. 

[ianburns252]

How much debt though has been hidden by the use of the revolver though? How much debt has been paid off too quickly and has affected our ability to operate at the correct level in the transfer market.

This does include the balance due on the revolver at the year end and there doesn't appear to be much, if any, scope to "hide" any.

The question over paying it off too quickly is a fair one (although more relevant 4 years or so ago as since then the average reduction per year has been around £5m so not much to write home about) and one which I don't disagree with.

My point was simply that looking at how much debt we have one year vs another doesn't paint the full picture and actually supports the contention many have made that it isn't always bad to use bank loans as if the gearing is low enough then it is likely sustainable

[Eeyore]

This does include the balance due on the revolver at the year end and there doesn't appear to be much, if any, scope to "hide" any.

The question over paying it off too quickly is a fair one (although more relevant 4 years or so ago as since then the average reduction per year has been around £5m so not much to write home about) and one which I don't disagree with.

My point was simply that looking at how much debt we have one year vs another doesn't paint the full picture and actually supports the contention many have made that it isn't always bad to use bank loans as if the gearing is low enough then it is likely sustainable

The balance at the end of the season is a bit irrelevant though. I think it is almost certain that throughout the last few seasons, we have used the revolver to fund infrastructure payments. To pay for things like the training ground and the Anfield Road extension plus COVID losses.

Then at the end of the season and before the end of the accounting period have used the TV revenue payments and CL money to pay down the revolver. That masks the amount of debt and severely impacts on our ability to compete at the correct level in the transfer market.

[ianburns252]

The balance at the end of the season is a bit irrelevant though. I think it is almost certain that throughout the last few seasons, we have used the revolver to fund infrastructure payments. To pay for things like the training ground and the Anfield Road extension plus COVID losses.

Then at the end of the season and before the end of the accounting period have used the TV revenue payments and CL money to pay down the revolver. That masks the amount of debt and severely impacts on our ability to compete at the correct level in the transfer market.

No real argument there and the easiest way to compare would be year on year net position of cash at bank less revolver (or just use the cashflow statement to see increase or decrease in cash each year).

Bear in mind that anything paid off of the revolver is then available to use again.

Either way I don't disagree much with your point there and think it could have been served better by a direct input from the owners

[TSC]

Think FSG played the dice with the squad this year by under investing/renewing players in the hope that the club will still make the Champions League.

With the exception of the ‘Coutinho’ sales money year this has been the consistent approach.  Generally punching upwards on the pitch thanks to Klopp, but even the best can only do so much on that front absent sufficient investment.