Listening to the Gutter, I'm once again agreeing most with Gutmann - he's frequently the only one trying to raise the point of financial doping and how it basically renders the sporting side nearly meaningless. So many seem to keep missing this point and are focusing on where the money is coming from, which is certainly understandable to an extent. But in doing so they fail to address the fact that clubs simply having unearned money poured in and gaining success from that, basically renders the idea of sporting achievement and earning success redundant.
I don't want Liverpool to have an owner who's simply pumping their money in non-stop, as I still want us to mostly live within our means and do it the right way. FSG have mostly been very good, but they could've gone the extra mile a few times, especially while they've fattened up their own asset using the club's profits to improve the infrastructure. If we suddenly just start spending with a blank cheque, out of kilter with how we're actually run and what we earn, then even though we are a very big club, it would still feel hollow to me. Basically, as I think Neil Docking said, it would be nicest to have an FSG+ type owner.
What I could do with less of is loudly trotting out the "we are a superclub" line once again. Yes, we are one of the big boys when it comes to wages (though in reality there's no chance we're higher than the fourth highest wage bill in our own league), but net spend is still way, way low compared to any other top six side (or Newcastle or Everton) over the past three and a half years. I realise net spend is only one element of it, but it's still a very big element. Simply calling us a superclub feels like doing some of the whataboutery rival fanbases engage in for them. It's not a myth or bullshit to say we spend low compared to a lot of rivals (even Arsenal and Spurs in recent years) and just feels deliberately contrarian to act as though we spend on a par with, or outgun, pretty much everyone else.
