Topic: FSG (*)

[Eeyore]

It's limited it compared to them not putting £1bn in cash into the club accounts for transfer spending too. What's your point?

They said they wouldn't fund player acquisitions so I don't have a problem with that Craig. However making capital investments on infrastructure for a Stadium they own is a completely different ball. Not least being that the first isn't allowed under FFP but the latter is.

I thought you might of attempted to cherry pick holes in my earlier post here you are have another go. 


 

Paying off the debt and either building a new Stadium or redeveloping Anfield were part of the conditions of the BARCAP process though. The New York emails show that JWH told other members of FSG that they would be able to buy the club for a steal because the other bidders were factoring in spending around 350m on a new stadium.

So instead of that FSG intended to spend around 100m on just targetting the corporates and were not bothered about the number of ordinery fans. The top end of ambition for the BARCAP process was a debt free Club with a new stadium funded by tge owners. Instead of that we have one redeveloped stand and in the last accounts just over 150m of debt.

Again we have another myth that FSG sorted out the commercial side of the Club. That happened under Hicks and Gillet and in particular Ayre as commercial Director. Of course FSG have continued that to an extent but they haven,t been gamechangers. Under FSG we have managed to pretty much keep pace with our rivals.  It isnt all rosy though in the last accounts our commercial income actually fell compared to the year before. As well as the abject failure to find naming rights sponsors for the new stand.

Now we come to Net spend, from the off FSG made it clear that they wouldnt be using their money to pay for players. They initially put in equity to stabilise the Club but lets be clear here the Net spend is money generated by LFC. To be precise it has come from increased TV money and increased Shirt deals and shirt sponsorship. As I have said they arent specific to lfc indeed at the moment we are slightly behind the curve in terms of commercial deals.  That may change when we renew the shirt deals or as the naming rights have shown it may not.

So if we take it that LFC has largely spent only our money has it been spent well under FSG over the whole of their tenure.  For me its a No. Have we had value for the amount we spend on wages for me thats a No.

So I think it is far from clear that FSG have been good owners. Good in some aspects but poor in other areas for me.









Surely you can do your usual trick of ignoring the context, pick out a sentence or two and completely twist it for your own ends. Even throw in an insult or two. 

[Andy Hunter]

How many people are willing to splash out £1bn for a football club? We struggled for 3 years to find someone to buy us when we were 'a steal'.

It's very very different to claim they're 'raking in the cash' as cowtown continually claims (and is continually corrected about).

If i'm correct were we a steal for 'years'?

I remember Hicks n Gillett putting us up in April 2010 for 800m, and every time Hicks was about to sell his stake to Dubai circa 2008, they wanted more money at the last minute.

Don't get me wrong, the club was always 'on the market' due to the weetabix analogy, but it was only by late 2010 when RBS were fed up, and H&G had incurred an additional £20m fine for not selling the club by the end of August 2010, that RBS intervened and the club was sold for a steal of £300m.

[Eeyore]

You could pay your mortgage off whilst you've other income to cover your kids education, then have more in the future to spend.

There are benefits to both paying it quicker and paying it longer, both have good and bad points.

There are only negatives for the Club though compared to FSG investing in THEIR business.

[CraigDS]

There are only negatives for the Club though compared to FSG investing in THEIR business.

Negatives for paying it longer?

Higher interest rates and potentially less borrowing options and longer until benefit from 100% of the additional income are just two negatives the club itself could have faced.

[Jookie]

So I think it is far from clear that FSG have been good owners. Good in some aspects but poor in other areas for me.

I think you are right about the commercial piece Al. That always looked to be on an upward trajectory from when Ayre was employed by the club. That pre-dates FSG.

I also think you are right about FSG being good at some things and not others. I'm sure most people would agree. That's why anyone saying FSG are great owners are wrong. And it's why anyone saying FSG are poor owners are equally wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle. However, reading this thread, people are becoming increasingly entrenched in their views. It comes across that either one extreme or other is true, wee  I would say neither is the case

One comment I'd make about your post above is FSG paying transfer fees. I actually don't want to be bankrolled by a benefactor. I'd much rather the club live within it's means when it comes to transfers and wages. What I want club owners to do is maximise the potential of the club -  both on commercial, sporting and supporter based items. With FSG I think this is a mixed bag. The new Main Stand is a positive for me. The lack of ARE so far is a negative. The muddled approach to transfers and managers at the start of their reign was a negative. The recent hire of Klopp and the recent upward trajectory in our performances and playing squad are a positive. How they kept hold of Suarez when Arsenal came knocking was strong ownership. Their lack of presence during the Suarez/Evra incident was weak leadership in my opinion. The debacle around ticket pricing of the new Main Stand was a negative. How they listened to the fan protests and some of the other ticketing initiates they've done are a positive.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it's not black and white whether they are good owners or not. Which side of the fence you are on probably depends on how much leeway you are currently giving them. Personally i think they were naive at the start. I think they thought they could cheat the system to win. That lead to mistakes on the footballing side of things. I think that has improved based on their decision to hire Klopp. If you sit on the other side of the fence then it's easy to pull them up about mistakes. You can apply the same arguments to the financial side of things. I don't expect any owner to bankroll us. Others may disagree.

What I would say is that I think they are a massive improvement on both H&G and David Moores. That doesn't make them good owners and, while I'm still skeptical of them,  I think they have done more to maximise the club's potential than Moores or H&G did.

[reddebs]

I don't understand the debt complaint? 

Wouldn't/wont we be in even more debt if we'd built a new stadium and/or started the ARE development which people are complaining that we havent/aren't doing.

Also wasn't the club valued at around £1b by Forbes when twit & twat owned us and the epic swindle only happened due to excessive debts they piled on the club, so in theory those complaining about an increase in debts and also the amount of "profit" they might make if/when they sell should be ecstatic the debts increasing as it'll impact their ability to make a profit right??

Or not 🤔?

[El Lobo]

I don't understand the debt complaint? 

Wouldn't/wont we be in even more debt if we'd built a new stadium and/or started the ARE development which people are complaining that we havent/aren't doing.

Also wasn't the club valued at around £1b by Forbes when twit & twat owned us and the epic swindle only happened due to excessive debts they piled on the club, so in theory those complaining about an increase in debts and also the amount of "profit" they might make if/when they sell should be ecstatic the debts increasing as it'll impact their ability to make a profit right??

Or not 🤔?

The new stadium one is absolutely bizarre considering the vast majority of people wanted us to stay at Anfield, including people in this thread who have been quite vocal in slating the owners.

[Eeyore]

I think you are right about the commercial piece Al. That always looked to be on an upward trajectory from when Ayre was employed by the club. That pre-dates FSG.

I also think you are right about FSG being good at some things and not others. I'm sure most people would agree. That's why anyone saying FSG are great owners are wrong. And it's why anyone saying FSG are poor owners are equally wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle. However, reading this thread, people are becoming increasingly entrenched in their views. It comes across that either one extreme or other is true, wee  I would say neither is the case

One comment I'd make about your post above is FSG paying transfer fees. I actually don't want to be bankrolled by a benefactor. I'd much rather the club live within it's means when it comes to transfers and wages. What I want club owners to do is maximise the potential of the club -  both on commercial, sporting and supporter based items. With FSG I think this is a mixed bag. The new Main Stand is a positive for me. The lack of ARE so far is a negative. The muddled approach to transfers and managers at the start of their reign was a negative. The recent hire of Klopp and the recent upward trajectory in our performances and playing squad are a positive. How they kept hold of Suarez when Arsenal came knocking was strong ownership. Their lack of presence during the Suarez/Evra incident was weak leadership in my opinion. The debacle around ticket pricing of the new Main Stand was a negative. How they listened to the fan protests and some of the other ticketing initiates they've done are a positive.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it's not black and white whether they are good owners or not. Which side of the fence you are on probably depends on how much leeway you are currently giving them. Personally i think they were naive at the start. I think they thought they could cheat the system to win. That lead to mistakes on the footballing side of things. I think that has improved based on their decision to hire Klopp. If you sit on the other side of the fence then it's easy to pull them up about mistakes. You can apply the same arguments to the financial side of things. I don't expect any owner to bankroll us. Others may disagree.

What I would say is that I think they are a massive improvement on both H&G and David Moores. That doesn't make them good owners and, while I'm still skeptical of them,  I think they have done more to maximise the club's potential than Moores or H&G did.

I think that is probably one of the best posts in this thread ( some would say the bar hasn't been set very high  ).

Fair and balanced. Re the FSG funding transfers I agree with you and they couldn't do it even if they wanted to without circumventing FFP. The thing is for me FSG investing in the Stadium and the Academy is allowed and it is a virtuous circle. The Club gains income, has a better chance of success and FSG see the value of their asset increase.

[Eeyore]

I don't understand the debt complaint? 

Wouldn't/wont we be in even more debt if we'd built a new stadium and/or started the ARE development which people are complaining that we havent/aren't doing.

Also wasn't the club valued at around £1b by Forbes when twit & twat owned us and the epic swindle only happened due to excessive debts they piled on the club, so in theory those complaining about an increase in debts and also the amount of "profit" they might make if/when they sell should be ecstatic the debts increasing as it'll impact their ability to make a profit right??

Or not 🤔?

Or FSG a bunch of investors could of invested the money to build a Stadium which would of increased the value of their investment. If we were only going to borrow to build/redevelop the Stadium what was the point of Moores even selling up.

[reddebs]

The new stadium one is absolutely bizarre considering the vast majority of people wanted us to stay at Anfield, including people in this thread who have been quite vocal in slating the owners.

I always thought that too.  Sure a shiny new stadium was alluring but staying at Anfield for me was always preferable if the expansion was possible even though we'd been led to believe it wasn't.

 

[CraigDS]

Or FSG a bunch of investors could of invested the money to build a Stadium which would of increased the value of their investment. If we were only going to borrow to build/redevelop the Stadium what was the point of Moores even selling up.

Because he didn't have the balls/ambition/means to overcome the obstacles of staying at Anfield and raising the funds required.

You say it like what they've achieved with the Main Stand was some easy extension you'd shove on the side of your house.

[El Lobo]

I think that is probably one of the best posts in this thread ( some would say the bar hasn't been set very high  ).

Fair and balanced. Re the FSG funding transfers I agree with you and they couldn't do it even if they wanted to without circumventing FFP. The thing is for me FSG investing in the Stadium and the Academy is allowed and it is a virtuous circle. The Club gains income, has a better chance of success and FSG see the value of their asset increase.

It isn't though is it Al?

Its apparently not backing managers in transfer windows when they say they've been backed if they want, using PR firms other owners used, hiring this person, hiring that person, not hiring this person, sacking that person, signing this player, wages being too high, wages being too low, giving certain players contracts, giving certain staff contracts etc etc etc etc.

The thing for you is everything that you could possibly spin negatively against the owners.

Twas an excellent post from Jookie, the one thing I'd just say is that I don't think there's a single solitary poster that has ever said FSG are great owners.

[reddebs]

Or FSG a bunch of investors could of invested the money to build a Stadium which would of increased the value of their investment. If we were only going to borrow to build/redevelop the Stadium what was the point of Moores even selling up.

Sure they could but investors generally don't have £500m sat in a bank doing nothing or they wouldn't be investors. 

I guess they could have cashed in on some of their other investments to get the cash but what if those investments we're generating say 5% income, could we have afforded £25m a year to replace that lost income??

I doubt it very much seeing as we aren't turning over a profit year on year.

As for Moore's maybe he realised that borrowing that amount of money was a sure fire way to ruin for both him and the club.

[ToneLa]

I don't think there's a single solitary poster that has ever said FSG are great owners.

[Jookie]

I think that is probably one of the best posts in this thread ( some would say the bar hasn't been set very high  ).

Fair and balanced.

Twas an excellent post from Jookie, the one thing I'd just say is that I don't think there's a single solitary poster that has ever said FSG are great owners.

Thanks for the comments. Eel I agree that nobody has come out and said the owners are great. However, it's coming across a bit like two extremes as people debate the minutiae of FSG's ownership.

Like I've said before it's easy to pull FSG up on specific things. It's easy to defend them too. It's because they've made some questionable decisions but also made some good ones.

My biggest issue with FSG at the moment is their continued lack of presence in Liverpool. For me this is at the root of their poorer decisions. I don't actually think they understand the club, it's supporters and the city of Liverpool. They probably understand the financial aspects. I still don't think they understand the culture of the club and the city. I think that manifests itself in poor decisions and can easily come across as being aloof and not really caring about the asset. My second biggest criticism is the ARE. As a fan it seems a no-brainer to do. Financially it would take longer to pay back but that should be something FSG swallow for the greater good of the supporter base. Don't get me wrong I think they have facilitated the club in it's ability to strengthen it's infrastructure and playing. coaching and operational staff. However, I think the ARE is something they could help facilitate (not necessarily pay for) and take the the hit on the length of time to repay back any loan.

All the other criticisms are less valid in my eyes. Progression of the on the pitch performance, transfer net spend, sacking Kenny, moving ground versus redeveloping Anfield, etc. For me there is no obvious black and white answer on these things. About what is best or to what extent  FSG have influenced things (particularly on the lack of trophies for example). Therefore I find it hard to have very strong criticisms about these aspects of their ownership.

Overall they have been OK owners. Got some stuff wrong, Got some stuff right. They've done enough to earn some trust. But they haven't done enough to remove our skepticism. Going forward it's right that we question their motives around any decision the club makes. On the flip side, too many are too keen to hammer them for every decision they make. There's got to be a balance somewhere in the middle that is healthy for a supporter-owner relationship.

[CraigDS]

Thanks for the comments. Eel I agree that nobody has come out and said the owners are great. However, it's coming across a bit like two extremes as people debate the minutiae of FSG's ownership.

I'm not sure there is anyone who is extreme 'pro' FSG. I include myself in that although others would like to argue otherwise. Pretty much everyone who would be considered 'pro' on here actually has views very much closer to your own, and we have all been more than happy to point out their errors and faults.

Like I've said before it's easy to pull FSG up on specific things. It's easy to defend them too. It's because they've made some questionable decisions but also made some good ones.

My biggest issue with FSG at the moment is their continued lack of presence in Liverpool. For me this is at the root of their poorer decisions. I don't actually think they understand the club, it's supporters and the city of Liverpool. They probably understand the financial aspects. I still don't think they understand the culture of the club and the city. I think that manifests itself in poor decisions and can easily come across as being aloof and not really caring about the asset. My second biggest criticism is the ARE. As a fan it seems a no-brainer to do. Financially it would take longer to pay back but that should be something FSG swallow for the greater good of the supporter base. Don't get me wrong I think they have facilitated the club in it's ability to strengthen it's infrastructure and playing. coaching and operational staff. However, I think the ARE is something they could help facilitate (not necessarily pay for) and take the the hit on the length of time to repay back any loan.

The ARE is on going, it was never going to be done until the Main was complete, which is only just happening.

The lack of presence is interesting, however the ones making the majority of decisions on a daily basis are here, or are here more often. Plus there is no reason why extremely successful and clever guys who run FSG, who are well used to running far reaching companies, shouldn't be well clued up on all aspects of Liverpool life to allow them to include this when making decisions.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

It isn't though is it Al?

Its apparently not backing managers in transfer windows when they say they've been backed if they want, using PR firms other owners used, hiring this person, hiring that person, not hiring this person, sacking that person, signing this player, wages being too high, wages being too low, giving certain players contracts, giving certain staff contracts etc etc etc etc.

The thing for you is everything that you could possibly spin negatively against the owners.

Twas an excellent post from Jookie, the one thing I'd just say is that I don't think there's a single solitary poster that has ever said FSG are great owners.

And every single thing of those originates in a deep resentment, or even hatred, for sacking the King. I'm absolutely convinced that is what driving Al's agenda. Not that he would ever admit it.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

The ARE is on going, it was never going to be done until the Main was complete, which is only just happening.

Whats the ARE?

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Anfield Road End.

[cowtownred]

No one is arguing otherwise, but the point that was specifically made is that they were 'raking in the cash'. Not that they will make a profit if and when they come to sell, but they were currently 'raking in the cash'.

If people want to debate then let's do so using facts, and not deliberate attempts to deceive.

OK raking in the cash may have been the wrong expression.  However if my sad pathetic ISA had trebled in value in 6 years I'd be pretty fucking gleeful.

I'd still be fucking shagged every May though when I see my football team battling to reach a European place.

[Jookie]

The ARE is on going, it was never going to be done until the Main was complete, which is only just happening.

There's been hints in the press, through Ayre's comments, that there is a reluctance to push ahead with the ARE. In my mind that puts a question mark on whether they will proceed with this or not.

The lack of presence is interesting, however the ones making the majority of decisions on a daily basis are here, or are here more often. Plus there is no reason why extremely successful and clever guys who run FSG, who are well used to running far reaching companies, shouldn't be well clued up on all aspects of Liverpool life to allow them to include this when making decisions.

Do the more senior people based within Liverpool have autonomy to make the big decisions? My take on that is no. The prime example being the Main Stand ticket price debacle. I don't think it's conceivable that any senior based figure in the club would come to that pricing structure if they were based in Liverpool. Or at least not know that it would cause huge uproar. The quickness in how that decision was reversed, in light of the Sunderland protests, suggest that FSG were shocked at the response. It points to a lack of understanding of the club's supporters and how they'd react.

This is all my opinion though. Based on conjecture and assumption. Though to be fair that's pretty similar to how everyone is forming their opinion - whether positive or negative.

[Eeyore]

And every single thing of those originates in a deep resentment, or even hatred, for sacking the King. I'm absolutely convinced that is what driving Al's agenda. Not that he would ever admit it.

It really isn't though. You only have to look at my post history to see that I was highly sceptical of FSG right from the beginning. For me they were disingenuous from the start, waffling about under talking and over delivering whilst at the same time employing a communications company to get their message out there in an off the record way.

Making Kenny go to Boston to basically beg for his job when they had already made up their mind that they were sacking him was a contemptible way to treat a Club legend but that was nothing new you only have to look at their track record in Boston to see that.

What was even worse was JWH going for a stroll in Miami with Bobby brown shoes, taking Steve Clarke to a ball game and trying to sweet talk him into staying on and then appointing Rodgers. As I have said all along their behaviour over Kenny just showed how clueless and classless they are.

What I can't understand is posters on here actually somehow trying to defend their actions. Looking to downplay Kenny's managerial record and looking to actually downplay us winning our only trophy in the last decade. Then again as they say you can fool some of the people all of the time.

That is probably best illustrated by the treatment of Graham and SOS on this thread. Posters actually turning on their own just to defend FSG's honour . Even the ticket protest somehow saw SOS painted as left wing nutters with an ulterior motive whilst FSG were portrayed as honourable owners actually praised for listening to the fans.

Who are FSG's supporters going to turn on next in a crazed attempt to protect FSG ?

The only agenda myself and the likes of SOS is LFC driven by a love of the Club and all the joy it has brought to us. All that just to defend a bunch of hedge fund managers who don't give a toss about the Club or even the Sport. Some people need to step back and work out how they ended up on the side of the money men.

As I have constantly said FSG have done good and bad things. They aren't terrible owners and are much better than H&G but when push comes to shove they are here for entirely the wrong reasons to make money. So all that the people defending their every move are doing is making it easier for them to do that and giving the less reason to commit and less reason to compete.

Maybe if both sides tried to ignore the originator of the post and look at it's contents then we might actually get somewhere. All I want is for FSG to be the best owners they can possibly be. They can do that and still make a huge return on their investment so why not push them to do that.

[CraigDS]

There's been hints in the press, through Ayre's comments, that there is a reluctance to push ahead with the ARE. In my mind that puts a question mark on whether they will proceed with this or not.

There has not been any sort of reluctance. It has always been, and will be, fully depending on if once the Main stand was done that both the demand and right model was there to make it work.

All talk seems to point that there may be a case for that, and that it'll give us the second largest stadium in the PL behind United.

Hopefully before the end of the year this can be out to bed.

Do the more senior people based within Liverpool have autonomy to make the big decisions? My take on that is no. The prime example being the Main Stand ticket price debacle. I don't think it's conceivable that any senior based figure in the club would come to that pricing structure if they were based in Liverpool. Or at least not know that it would cause huge uproar. The quickness in how that decision was reversed, in light of the Sunderland protests, suggest that FSG were shocked at the response. It points to a lack of understanding of the club's supporters and how they'd react.

This is all my opinion though. Based on conjecture and assumption. Though to be fair that's pretty similar to how everyone is forming their opinion - whether positive or negative.

You could also argue it wasn't a decision made at board level (so made by Ayre and co), and once the kick off happened over the prices they stepped in to make the quick u-turn.

I've no idea which is true, but that is as possible a situation as what you suggest, and can't see anything to make you favour one over the other.

[ToneLa]

It really isn't though. You only have to look at my post history to see that I was highly sceptical of FSG right from the beginning.

You may not realise it but you didn't view them with an open mind at any point.

[El Lobo]

You only have to look at my post history to see that I was highly sceptical of FSG right from the beginning.

Well if that doesn't pretty much explain the whole thread, nothing else will

[Jookie]

There has not been any sort of reluctance. It has always been, and will be, fully depending on if once the Main stand was done that both the demand and right model was there to make it work.

All talk seems to point that there may be a case for that, and that it'll give us the second largest stadium in the PL behind United.

Hopefully before the end of the year this can be out to bed.


You could also argue it wasn't a decision made at board level (so made by Ayre and co), and once the kick off happened over the prices they stepped in to make the quick u-turn.

I've no idea which is true, but that is as possible a situation as what you suggest, and can't see anything to make you favour one over the other.

The Main Stand ticket pricing and the subsequent protest lies at FSG's feet. It's not a big deal since they quickly reversed the decision. But it does suggest that they, or the people they employ, have a disconnect with the fanbase. How can you argue against that?

In terms of the Anfield Road extension, here's some quotes that I've pulled from the media from John Henry and Ian Ayre:

John Henry:

“I don’t know if there is a next step because ticket prices are an issue in England. That may foreclose further expansion. We’ll have to see.”

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2016/09/john-henry-suggests-ticket-price-issue-puts-anfield-road-expansion-doubt/

Ian Ayre:

 “ A stand behind a goal doesn’t have the benefit of hospitality that would go a long way to meet the redevelopment costs.

“If you consider the redevelopment of Anfield Road from a purely General Admission perspective, building, say, 6,000 extra seats to take the capacity up to 60,000 would cost somewhere between £60m and £70m.

“At £12,000 to £13,000 per seat, it would take approximately 15 years to pay back, which is not a smart investment for the business. Therefore the Club needs to find a rounded solution that’s in the best interests of the football club.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-chief-executive-ian-ayre-12011511

Based on those quotes I'm not 100% sure they are going to do the ARE. They might but they might not. Mainly because while it would provide numerous extra seats for the 'normal' fan it doesn't fit with their business model -  i.e. it'll take a bit longer to pay back. I'm not asking them to build the stand with their money. Or even contribute to it. Just to take a hit on the duration of the re-payments. All for the benefit of the match going supporter base. A supporter base that has a stadium that can't meet the current demand for tickets.

People can claim Al is one-eyed in his dislike for FSG but you'll literally defend them about everything. It's as much your stance as the likes of Al's that has tuned this thread into a mud slinging competition.

What aspects of FSG's ownership do you actually not like? Given that you don't think they are 'great' owners.

[NaivetyinBlack]

The paragon of unreliable, fact free, opinion based bullshit strikes again. Apparently Al 555 says that he is 'balanced' in his views and not extreme at all. Then he comes up with this utter sewage of a post.

You only have to look at my post history to see that I was highly sceptical of FSG right from the beginning. For me they were disingenuous from the start, waffling about under talking and over delivering whilst at the same time employing a communications company to get their message out there in an off the record way.

Nothing about that says balanced. It's blatantly obvious you disliked them from that start because of their communication strategy. Also, you must live in a small bubble, as what you cite as disingenious is the norm for any global enterprise. Its called Public Relations. Oh and it is a 'global enterprise', however much you want to call it as 'your club'. This is where your agenda stems from.

Making Kenny go to Boston to basically beg for his job when they had already made up their mind that they were sacking him was a contemptible way to treat a Club legend but that was nothing new you only have to look at their track record in Boston to see that.

I've read this so many times now without any sort of proof at all. What makes any of you think that Kenny went there to 'beg' for his job ? The next time you write your 'suspicions' call them that, rather than being a disingenious poster hell bent on waffling about his agenda. Everyone knows the character of Kenny. If FSG behaved with him the way you claim they did, he'd still not be working for them.

What was even worse was JWH going for a stroll in Miami with Bobby brown shoes, taking Steve Clarke to a ball game and trying to sweet talk him into staying on and then appointing Rodgers. As I have said all along their behaviour over Kenny just showed how clueless and classless they are.

So according to the morality police of Al555, owners are not allowed to meet managerial candidates in public. 'Oh they invited him to a ball game. The snide wankers. How dare they !' They are only allowed to meet with the candidate who is about to be hired. Why ? Al555 said so.

What I can't understand is posters on here actually somehow trying to defend their actions. Looking to downplay Kenny's managerial record and looking to actually downplay us winning our only trophy in the last decade.

Kenny's second season was our lowest points total in 3 decades. Any owners in their right minds would have been alarmed. The fact that he is a legend at the club should not disguise how absolutely abysmal we were. And please don't justify with quoting the loss of Lucas. He never was a season changing player.

That is probably best illustrated by the treatment of Graham and SOS on this thread. Posters actually turning on their own just to defend FSG's honour .

Good grief. Hyperbole much ? No one has attacked Garaham or SoS. In fact, Graham has repeatedly raised questions which a lot of posters have tried to debate about. A lot of posters, including me feel he is unjustified in his expectations and a lot of his criticisms are questionable. Asking him to elaborate and presenting a counter view does not make anyone treat him like they are 'turning on him'.

Stop with the hyperbolic, divisionary drivel.

The only agenda myself and the likes of SOS is LFC driven by a love of the Club and all the joy it has brought to us. All that just to defend a bunch of hedge fund managers who don't give a toss about the Club or even the Sport. Some people need to step back and work out how they ended up on the side of the money men.

Again, another example of this strange, romanticized hyperbolism about 'love for the club'. Do you think people like me who defend FSG love the club any less than you do ? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a hedge fund manager and you have no idea how much 'toss' they give about the club, unless you personally involve yourself in the day to day affairs. All you have in your defense is "they are money men".

They aren't terrible owners and are much better than H&G but when push comes to shove they are here for entirely the wrong reasons to make money.

 

Anyone who would run a business would consider making money as the absolute right reason. It is your prejudice about LFC being a global business that is driving your agenda. You are prejudicial against them because they are money men. It is your problem. Not theirs.

All I want is for FSG to be the best owners they can possibly be.

Extremely benevolent of you. Thankfully, they have people far more qualified to work for them. If they do something illegal or to the detriment of the club, feel free to come at them with proof. If what you have is opinions and feelings, don't really expect everyone to fall back and let you railroad them. Be prepared for people to call you disingenious, prejudiced and irrational.

As that is what you are.

[Jfor83]

There has not been any sort of reluctance. It has always been, and will be, fully depending on if once the Main stand was done that both the demand and right model was there to make it work.

All talk seems to point that there may be a case for that, and that it'll give us the second largest stadium in the PL behind United.

Hopefully before the end of the year this can be out to bed.


You could also argue it wasn't a decision made at board level (so made by Ayre and co), and once the kick off happened over the prices they stepped in to make the quick u-turn.

I've no idea which is true, but that is as possible a situation as what you suggest, and can't see anything to make you favour one over the other.

The demand is obviously there, no question and why can't they just do it regardless of what model. Maybe they could just do it out of their cash reserves and say they bought us for £380m instead of £300m?

[El Lobo]

Excellent post Nativity

[Eeyore]

You may not realise it but you didn't view them with an open mind at any point.

The people with an open mind though mate. They are too busy sending their bank details of to Nigeria and waiting for the post man to deliver their inheritance.   

[Jfor83]

The paragon of unreliable, fact free, opinion based bullshit strikes again. Apparently Al 555 says that he is 'balanced' in his views and not extreme at all. Then he comes up with this utter sewage of a post.

Nothing about that says balanced. It's blatantly obvious you disliked them from that start because of their communication strategy. Also, you must live in a small bubble, as what you cite as disingenious is the norm for any global enterprise. Its called Public Relations. Oh and it is a 'global enterprise', however much you want to call it as 'your club'. This is where your agenda stems from.


I've read this so many times now without any sort of proof at all. What makes any of you think that Kenny went there to 'beg' for his job ? The next time you write your 'suspicions' call them that, rather than being a disingenious poster hell bent on waffling about his agenda. Everyone knows the character of Kenny. If FSG behaved with him the way you claim they did, he'd still not be working for them.


So according to the morality police of Al555, owners are not allowed to meet managerial candidates in public. 'Oh they invited him to a ball game. The snide wankers. How dare they !' They are only allowed to meet with the candidate who is about to be hired. Why ? Al555 said so.


Kenny's second season was our lowest points total in 3 decades. Any owners in their right minds would have been alarmed. The fact that he is a legend at the club should not disguise how absolutely abysmal we were. And please don't justify with quoting the loss of Lucas. He never was a season changing player.


Good grief. Hyperbole much ? No one has attacked Garaham or SoS. In fact, Graham has repeatedly raised questions which a lot of posters have tried to debate about. A lot of posters, including me feel he is unjustified in his expectations and a lot of his criticisms are questionable. Asking him to elaborate and presenting a counter view does not make anyone treat him like they are 'turning on him'.

Stop with the hyperbolic, divisionary drivel.


Again, another example of this strange, romanticized hyperbolism about 'love for the club'. Do you think people like me who defend FSG love the club any less than you do ? There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a hedge fund manager and you have no idea how much 'toss' they give about the club, unless you personally involve yourself in the day to day affairs. All you have in your defense is "they are money men".


 

Anyone who would run a business would consider making money as the absolute right reason. It is your prejudice about LFC being a global business that is driving your agenda. You are prejudicial against them because they are money men. It is your problem. Not theirs.


Extremely benevolent of you. Thankfully, they have people far more qualified to work for them. If they do something illegal or to the detriment of the club, feel free to come at them with proof. If what you have is opinions and feelings, don't really expect everyone to fall back and let you railroad them. Be prepared for people to call you disingenious, prejudiced and irrational.

As that is what you are.

So FSG need to do something illegal before you'd call them out??

[Chakan]

The people with an open mind though mate. They are too busy sending their bank details of to Nigeria and waiting for the post man to deliver their inheritance.   

You in a nutshell. Open minded people = gullible. Nuff said really.

[El Lobo]

The people with an open mind though mate. They are too busy sending their bank details of to Nigeria and waiting for the post man to deliver their inheritance.   

Oh man that's so grim 

People with an open mind are stupid, gullible people. Oh dear.

[NaivetyinBlack]

The people with an open mind though mate. They are too busy sending their bank details of to Nigeria and waiting for the post man to deliver their inheritance.   

The emoticon at the end doesn't help your cause.

You post like a cynical, bitter old man who experiences no joy in the club.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Go USA !!

[Graham Smith]

The ARE is a perfect example of the conflict between the Club and FSG.

6000 or more GA tickets are brilliant for the Club - more people in, better atmosphere etc but not as good for FSG who according to Ayre wouldn't see a 15 year 'payback' as attractive.

LFC needs a massive ground so we can use our self sustaining model to create the 'virtuous circle' Al mentions and with which I agree.

While we have owners who put themselves first and the Club second we aren't getting to where we need to be fast enough.

[ToneLa]

The people with an open mind though mate. They are too busy sending their bank details of to Nigeria and waiting for the post man to deliver their inheritance.   

Whereas the closed mind ones never leave the house because the sky is rumoured to be falling in?

[CraigDS]

The Main Stand ticket pricing and the subsequent protest lies at FSG's feet. It's not a big deal since they quickly reversed the decision. But it does suggest that they, or the people they employ, have a disconnect with the fanbase. How can you argue against that?

I didn't attempt to argue against that, did I?

I offered up the same alternative you have (bit in bold) to what Al said (the bit not in bold), and said either could be as true as the other and I don't know which and not sure how anyone else could without inside info.

In terms of the Anfield Road extension, here's some quotes that I've pulled from the media from John Henry and Ian Ayre:

snip

Based on those quotes I'm not 100% sure they are going to do the ARE. They might but they might not. Mainly because while it would provide numerous extra seats for the 'normal' fan it doesn't fit with their business model -  i.e. it'll take a bit longer to pay back. I'm not asking them to build the stand with their money. Or even contribute to it. Just to take a hit on the duration of the re-payments. All for the benefit of the match going supporter base. A supporter base that has a stadium that can't meet the current demand for tickets.

Again, how exactly do either of those quotes go against what I said - which is a decision will be made once the Main is built depending on if demand is there and the financial model can be found.

Like the Main, it has always been a 'maybe'. The Main ended up being done as the model worked in that instance, will there be a viable one for the ARE? I'd hazard a guess that it will be, and have said for well over a year now that I also expect it is one which ends up seeing the stadium go over the 62k mark - and that seems to be getting more traction in recent months.

People can claim Al is one-eyed in his dislike for FSG but you'll literally defend them about everything. It's as much your stance as the likes of Al's that has tuned this thread into a mud slinging competition.

I'm not defending them, but more providing alternative options to the constant negative spin from Al and some others. Not because I support FSG as owners, business men or people, but because I tend not to have such a negative view on life, certainly not on a hobby and something which I have been brought up to follow as a fun past time, and also because I do have a decent level of business knowledge from my upbringing, education and employment over the last decade.

Hence why my posts are often not even offering a personal opinion but debunking others.

What aspects of FSG's ownership do you actually not like? Given that you don't think they are 'great' owners.

I've said them many times in this thread already. I guess if you've not read them it's one reason you think I defend them against everything. Not really my issue but would be good if people kept up with posts before making such accusations.

I've said for years it would have been nice to have seen someone like Barwick brought in at board level, if not in a role which requires day to day work then some sort of official advisory role (he has been rumoured to have advised them previously). I've also said it would have been good to have something like Bayern have with a separate advisory board made up of ex-players or others with long term association with the club and local area - I threw the idea out that it could possibly be chaired by Kenny who then with his role as a board member could bring their opinions to the main board.

The communication across a number of issues could have been much better. They clearly had a learning curve in the first few years and it would have been nice for them to hold their hands up sometimes and say so. They have at times (ticket prices) but probably should have more.

Settling on a structure quicker may have helped things, but then I also see this as more fluid than some others and things change as opportunities and options do.

Spending could have been higher in the last few windows. No idea who this is down to, if it's been the manager and transfer team here or them stopping spending, but hopefully it should mean that money is available to spend which should have been previously.

[Jookie]

Hence why my posts are often not even offering a personal opinion but debunking others.

I've said them many times in this thread already. I guess if you've not read them it's one reason you think I defend them against everything. Not really my issue but would be good if people kept up with posts before making such accusations.

No worries and sorry about not keeping up with the posts. There's such much nonsensical stuff posted in this thread that it's hard to keep up.

I've done the same thing with regards to debunking the criticisms. Since I think some are way over the top.Based on the criticisms you listed the are obviously not fully enamoured with everything FSG have done so far. However, at least from the posts I've read in the last few days, yourself and others, are coming across maybe too much in favour of FSG.

I agree with most of your criticisms but still think a local FSG presence or a locally based CEO and/or COO with autonomy to make big decisions would negate the need for a Brian Barwick or ex-player based committee. That would improve communication, which I agree has been a poorer aspect of their ownership. Transfer fees I'm not that arsed about. Not 100% sure how much you can pin that on managers, transfer committee or owners. They probably don't take 100% of the blame that's for sure.

Just my opinions of course. I could be massively wrong.

[CraigDS]

I agree with most of your criticisms but still think a local FSG presence or a locally based CEO and/or COO with autonomy to make big decisions would negate the need for a Brian Barwick or ex-player based committee. That would improve communication, which I agree has been a poorer aspect of their ownership. Transfer fees I'm not that arsed about. Not 100% sure how much you can pin that on managers, transfer committee or owners. They probably don't take 100% of the blame that's for sure.

I don't think a locally based CEO (which we've had in Ayre) would replace what a Barwick (advice on football business issues) or ex-player/people with long term association with the club (general advisory) could offer. They'd be there to bounce ideas off and given their previous experiences would be able to offer advice on which way to proceed. That doesn't mean you'd follow it, but it would be good to bounce ideas off.

Don't forget Gordon has seen his role both in FSG (his ownership has gone over the 10% mark) and LFC vastly increased in the last few years, and he's been pictured loads of times in Liverpool and around Klopp and other people at the club. So hopefully that's going someway to increasing the link across the pond.