Topic: FSG discussion thread

[WhereAngelsPlay]

I might have missed it, but is anyone asking FSG to spend like Barcelona?

Nope but that doesn't stop some from pretending that those of us who aren't happy are asking for them to just spunk money away.

The stadium upgrades are not a reason for our mid table level spend,doesn't even count towards ffp.

[oldman]

FSG can be shrewd businessmen, they can also be tight as hell.

The one thing I can say is that I happen to know one of John Henry's personal assistants in Boston. She is a Liverpool fan before the club was bought and yet when she wants to go to games, she gets sent a bill to pay by her boss for the cost of tickets.

at least she can get a ticket

[kavah]

What impact do we think the pandemic had on two key things;  firstly, the amount of success we got from the squad we had in terms of trophies won, and secondly, the investment into the squad when revenue was compromised and the confidence in future revenue was affected?

Personally, I think we're sitting on a significant investment into the squad which has been saved up to allow us to overhaul the core of the first team in a short period of time (we've started with Konate, Diaz and Nunez).  I think this is a result of the pandemic.  We are bringing through a few young players who will be central to the squad in the next few years and establishing a new forward line.  Add two top players in their mid 20s to our midfield and our squad looks brilliant.

In order for this to work, we have to buy the right players at the right price and find players who are hungry to play for the sporting project rather than the money.  They will still earn significant sums of money, just not the ridiculous amounts that are paid by clubs subsidised by the national wealth of other countries.

If we had been able to add the right players this summer, we would have.  We still have a very strong squad and are well placed financially to remain competitive in the long term.  I much rather this sporting project than sitting where Man City are with their non-sporting project.  When we win (which we have and still will) it is a far better achievement.

A lot of the negativity in the discussions on here are based on the results we've seen.  Let's be honest, we've been pretty crap this season when compared to recent years.  I'd argue the issues in our results are a perfect storm of factors and not purely down to not buying lots of new players.

1. We've got lots of injuries
2. A few big players have dropped their levels (this is a whole discussion in itself)
3. We've had a run of bad luck (or poor individual errors/decisions) and bad timing of these

The overall effect of these things is that the psychological state of the squad (and fan base) is damaged.  Where you need composure and flow, you've got players either trying to force things or second guessing themselves.

Where the low rate of player turnover is having an effect is that things haven't been freshened up as much as possibly they could have been.  There's a lot to be said for changing a group by bringing new faces and personalities into it.  There's also the pressure on starting spots that can be applied by creating competition for places and a new hunger you get from players who haven't been there and done it.  This is such a difficult balance to get right though.  You can get it right like Dalglish or  wrong like Souness.

I've digressed from the thread a bit here, so to bring it back, the squad needs investment, but the player turnover needs to be carefully managed and done over a period of time with the right people being brought in (skill sets and personalities).  We've got the budget to do so because the club is well run and structured. I think we'll see it happen over the next 18 months so be patient and enjoy the ride because we've still got a lot to enjoy with the current group of players.

Good post Prof. I think that’s fair.

[ScottScott]

You’ve been lapping up them Hogan soundbites left right and centre.

Lets assess the history of this ‘right player at  the right value’ fallacy.

Right player, right value.

Robertson
Wijnaldum
Tsmikas
Matip
Konate
Fabinho

Wrong player, right value

Minamino
Origi
Shaq
Artur
Kabak
Davies
Adrian
Karius
Thiago
Grujic

Right player, wrong value (ie overpaid at the time)- Disclaimer, this is in no way indicative of their current market value or worth to us during their time here.

Virgil
Allison
Nunez
Diaz
Sadio Mane
Jota

Wrong player, wrong value

Keita
Ox

Constantly trying to find this right player at the right value has led to us having a bloated squad packed full of deadwood over the years. When we spend the money (usually over the odds), it tends to pay off.

To summarise, when we actually spend like we’re supposed to; we tend to nail it. When we penny pinch, it bites us on the arse.

Those players I've bolded, I mean, I don't know where to start

1. You're judging Ox and Keita based off of there time here, and not the value we saw before they signed. Ox was a 24 year old English player who shown in his 1st 6 months why we wanted him at £35m, he was explosive and if not for that injury against Roma would have been a bargain. Keita, everybody thought we'd played a blinder doing the deal we did, the player in Germany was this hard working, powerful CM who would be a mainstay for us for years but no one could have seen these injury issues

2. The players you've listed in the overpaid is a joke. Everyone knew we were getting top quality in both VVD and Ali and we knew we had to pay top money for them. Mane looked amazing and Diaz was coming off a half season of loads of goals and assists so the money we paid for both of them was spot on. Jota was the only one who could be argued but for anyone who had watched Wolves, he was always their best attacker

3. You've called out a load of players who we brought in to provide backup to the squad (and somehow have thrown Thiago into the list as well!!). Do you expect us to have 22 £50m+ players like City? What is wrong with bringing in players like Tsimikas or Minamino for low money and wages who are able to provide solid backup without breaking the bank and allowing us to spend more in other areas?

4. No one, not even the most ardent supporter, looked at the signings of Gini and Robbo and thought we getting amazing players. Yes, they've worked out but if we just went and brought in a squad of these players people would be losing their shit

[ScottScott]

FSG can be shrewd businessmen, they can also be tight as hell.

The one thing I can say is that I happen to know one of John Henry's personal assistants in Boston. She is a Liverpool fan before the club was bought and yet when she wants to go to games, she gets sent a bill to pay by her boss for the cost of tickets.

So, she's his personal assistant in Boston and expects them to pay for her to go to games in Liverpool? She should be fucking happy she's getting tickets because hardly anyone here can get one. The ungrateful cow

[El Lobo]

Right player wrong value, wrong player wrong value

What a load of old arse that post was. I like how he went back to 2015 to get Divock Origi but decided to skip Gomez, Milner and Bobby from 2016 and then decided Mo didn't really fit into any of those categories (I'm guessing right player, right value, wrong attitude, wrong wages, right hair, wrong agent, right in 2019 CL Final, wrong in 2018 CL Final, right diet, wrong passing to Mane).

[FLRed67]

Surprised they haven't sold the club considering their FFP gamble didn't pay off + club at an all time high value.

Aren't venture capitalists those investors who take chances on undervalued assets to sell them further down the line once their value increase? I'm not a financial expert but maybe now should be the perfect time to sell?

Whatever the finances behind LFC's transfer spending are, i don't think FSG's approach will keep us in contention regardless of how much Jurgen & staff paper over the cracks - there's so much money in the PL that you can't simply financially outmuscle everybody.

They're not bad owners but they're not a good fit for where the club has been since 2020, in a constant position of WIN NOW on the biggest prizes.

There aren’t many smart businesspeople out there sitting around waiting for the opportunity to blow 4 billion on a football club.

And venture capitalists don’t generally get involved in things that cost 4 billion; their job is to invest in start-ups that will be at least a 10 bagger (i.e.10 times return)

FSG managed it, because they got in for about 300 million and change.

There is however, a certain type of people who will be interested, regardless of the price .    .    . 

Be careful what you wish for.

[BobPaisley3]

So, she's his personal assistant in Boston and expects them to pay for her to go to games in Liverpool? She should be fucking happy she's getting tickets because hardly anyone here can get one. The ungrateful cow

She speaks very highly of you.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Spoiler

There aren’t many smart businesspeople out there sitting around waiting for the opportunity to blow 4 billion on a football club.

And venture capitalists don’t generally get involved in things that cost 4 billion; their job is to invest in start-ups that will be at least a 10 bagger (i.e.10 times return)

FSG managed it, because they got in for about 300 million and change.

There is however, a certain type of people who will be interested, regardless of the price .    .    . 

[close]

Be careful what you wish for.

One of the most piss boiling go to replies.

Means fuck all like.

[clinical]

Spurs took out a huge loan post covid. Arsenal won’t carry on spending at their current level, and as I’ve said before, their next challenge is keeping that group of players together.
You can’t say you’d be happy to spend as much as Arsenal and then select a timescale in the past. But even then you aren’t factoring in wages.

Arsenal have a higher wage to revenue ratio than us. Factor in wages only makes it look worse for us. But they are indeed borrowing money and surely can't last however if it gets them UCL football then that loan has been more than worth it. Bit of a risk if it doesn't. But here comes that word again, risk.

[clinical]

You miss my point and need to incorporate that reference in relation to the overall point of the post, which in simple terms is, FSG won't spend if they don't think they are finding value in the market.  You could argue that Alisson was around his true market value, but to my eye he was the exception.

So yes, by fans demanding FSG spend they are asking FSG to emulate Barcelona by buying anything and anyone to fill spots.  Perhaps fans need to realise that we aren't spending because we are waiting for the right players at the right valuation.  Whether you agree with that method or not doesn't matter, that is how FSG operate and as I summarised it has lead us to this point so far.

IMO the reason most fans take issue with this is because of what Man City have done to distort the market.  Pre-City this wouldn't have been a problem, but now everyone wants us to compete with City.  FSG aren't going to do that.

Trouble is waiting for the right players at the right price is great whilst you can. But when the right players start choosing other clubs or the right players are never available for the right price you have issues. This is where we're heading. So maybe we have to identify these right players a bit earlier in their careers rather than waiting until they are worth £100m and have Madrid and City all over them?

[keyop]

So, she's his personal assistant in Boston and expects them to pay for her to go to games in Liverpool? She should be fucking happy she's getting tickets because hardly anyone here can get one. The ungrateful cow

[killer-heels]

There aren’t many smart businesspeople out there sitting around waiting for the opportunity to blow 4 billion on a football club.

And venture capitalists don’t generally get involved in things that cost 4 billion; their job is to invest in start-ups that will be at least a 10 bagger (i.e.10 times return)

FSG managed it, because they got in for about 300 million and change.

There is however, a certain type of people who will be interested, regardless of the price .    .    . 

Be careful what you wish for.

So what about Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and United?

[El Lobo]

One of the most piss boiling go to replies.

Means fuck all like.

I dont think it means completely fuck all. It probably is a bit of a daft response....but we've been in a 'our current ownership have maybe taken us as far as they can' situation before and we ended up with much worse. So whilst 'careful what you wish for' shouldn't be used to just close down any debate about them....it is still pretty valid. Particularly when you look around the PL, where there are two state owners, one who have just been taken away from a Russian gangster, and then a lot who would get even more criticism than FSG if they were our owners (the Glazers, the Kroenkes, Moshila etc)

[El Lobo]

So what about Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and United?

You keep talking about them....? What about them, exactly?

Arsenal haven't played Champions League football for five years. United have gone from not finishing outside the top 3 in over twenty years to finishing outside the top 4 in five of the last nine. Every success Chelsea have had was under Abramovich. What exactly is your point about them...? That they're above us in the league in one season, in October....?

[TwitterJayy]

welcome to the modern world, there is no middle ground - pick a side

Isn’t the middle side in this case, is for FSG to stay and spend some money. Not stupid amounts but the amount other teams, worse off can spend?

My biggest worry is that we need a massive January and summer…

I just know it won’t be sanctioned for one reason or another. Looking online the Red Sox is in the same situation but think the owners care about us more :/

As someone mentioned previously this team was generational it was that good. All I’ve ever known is shite teams battling for 4th

[Mighty_Red]

The funniest thing is that, ultimately, this thread (and opinion of FSG) boils to down our transfer policy.

The problem is, everyone has a wildy different opinion on what we should've been doing before and what we should be doing now. Of course that is RAWK (and all forums) in a nutshell.

For instance we have heard that
- we should sell players with 2 years left of their contract
- sell players before their legs go
- we should've sold stars when their transfer value peaked
- don't give big contracts to Salah and Hendo
- keep Gini (how does that fly with the above?)
- buy younger, hungry players
- Always be competing
- Jota and Diaz were overpriced (yet we always try to find value?)

Many of these are perfectly valid opinions but they don't always go together. FSGs model was to buy low, sell high and keep wages low (especially after 2012). We only started to pay higher wages when it was apparent we couldn't keep hold of players.

The main reason we have started to hand out big contract renewals is because fundamentally we want to keep our top players. It costs us more in many cases than buy ling players but ultimately some of this new policy is driven by the requiments from the guys in charge of recruitment, of which Ward and Klopp are an integral part of. Klopp wanted Hendo to stay so a contract agreement was made even though he has no transfer value.

Sometimes Jurgen hasn't got what he's wanted (e.g. Gini to stay, or a new CB), but no manager (apart from Pep) can get everything they want but sometimes what he gets (e.g Hendo staying) may not be what all the fans wanted.

Too many have made this into a Jurgen vs FSG war but ultimately, the policy is driven by the entire team at the club not just FSG so criticism should be levelled at all of them not just the ones with the purse strings.

[Redric1970]

I think what we can all agree on is that they could have done better as owners but at the same time they could have been far worse, lately though they have made major errors with regards keeping us at the top through sheer penny pinching. The trouble is it would have and should have been done over the last few transfer windows with 1 world class midfield replacement per transfer window which lets be honest at a time where we are regularly reaching champions league finals, reporting record turnover etc there is zero excuses, to get to this point where we arguably need 3 world class midfielders to get back to where we were is a major fuck up, we are here because we have spent £92mil net over the last 4 years you can’t can’t past that fact. Nobody is asking them to compete financially with city psg etc but there is 0 excuses with not competing spend wise with Man Utd, Chelsea, spurs, arsenal, Nottingham forest and West Ham have spent more this year than we have in the last 4 anyone who thinks we can compete with the likes of Man City with that business model is seriously deluded.and I’m not saying we need to kick them out but everything goes in cycles and it was plain to see for most fans that this team was comping to the end of the cycle, every now and then they will need to step up, and this is that time they need to give klopp the better part of £300mil to get us back to the top. Come the end of the season we are already going to see ox, keita, Milner and firmino leave for free.

[killer-heels]

You keep talking about them....? What about them, exactly?

Arsenal haven't played Champions League football for five years. United have gone from not finishing outside the top 3 in over twenty years to finishing outside the top 4 in five of the last nine. Every success Chelsea have had was under Abramovich. What exactly is your point about them...? That they're above us in the league in one season, in October....?

My reply was deliberately obtuse to that poster. The issue I have with posts like his is that it comes across like we should be grateful at this sort of hostage situation FSG have us in. It may not be what the poster meant, but it comes across like it.

Where I stand on it is that I like FSG as owners. I have never wanted them to leave and hope they own the club for a long time. I dont believe they are as committed to winning as we would like but I do think they have mitigation as to why they havent spent as much recently, but lets see going forward. Even if they dont spend much this coming summer, I still dont want them out.

I think most fans want FSG to stay as well. Or at least there isnt anywhere near a clamour for them to leave.

As a side point, it may just be my politics but the way I stand is I dont really want to defend venture capitalists. As long as its not death threats or really unsavoury, people can criticise away.

[Mighty_Red]

So maybe we have to identify these right players a bit earlier in their careers rather than waiting until they are worth £100m and have Madrid and City all over them?

As per my previous post, this is an example of a transfer policy, which worked in 2016, but may not necessarily work now to the same extent.

For example, Arsenal have been able to take punts on young players and give them PL and UEL experience. Those players have been wildly inconsistent but seem to have learned and developed.

Its much harder for us to play those players before they are ready when you have to win every game to keep up with City. If you cant give 22/23 yr olds game time they don't progress and you can't send them on loan like that therefore we wait until we think they are ready to slot in (taking into account a 3-6 month settling in period).

In short, combining squad renewal whilst winning all your matches is fucking hard without unlimited cash cheat codes.

[El Lobo]

My reply was deliberately obtuse to that poster. The issue I have with posts like his is that it comes across like we should be grateful at this sort of hostage situation FSG have us in. It may not be what the poster meant, but it comes across like it.

Where I stand on it is that I like FSG as owners. I have never wanted them to leave and hope they own the club for a long time. I dont believe they are as committed to winning as we would like but I do think they have mitigation as to why they havent spent as much recently, but lets see going forward. Even if they dont spend much this coming summer, I still dont want them out.

I think most fans want FSG to stay as well. Or at least there isnt anywhere near a clamour for them to leave.

As a side point, it may just be my politics but the way I stand is I dont really want to defend venture capitalists. As long as its not death threats or really unsavoury, people can criticise away.

Right so 'So what about Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and United?' didn't actually relate to anything? Good point.

[killer-heels]

Right so 'So what about Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and United?' didn't actually relate to anything? Good point.

How much were Chelsea bought for?

[redmark]

I think what we can all agree on is that they could have done better as owners but at the same time they could have been far worse, lately though they have made major errors with regards keeping us at the top through sheer penny pinching. The trouble is it would have and should have been done over the last few transfer windows with 1 world class midfield replacement per transfer window which lets be honest at a time where we are regularly reaching champions league finals, reporting record turnover etc there is zero excuses to get to this point where we arguably need 3 world class midfielders to get back to where we were is a major fuck up, we are here because we have spent £92mil net over the last 4 years you can’t can’t past that fact. Nobody is asking them to compete financially with city psg etc but there is 0 excuses with not competing spend wise with Man Utd, Chelsea, spurs, arsenal, Nottingham forest and West Ham have spent more this year than we have in the last 4 anyone who thinks we can compete with the likes of Man City with that business model is seriously deluded.and I’m not saying we need to kick them out but everything goes in cycles and it was plain to see for most fans that this team was comping to the end of the cycle, every now and then they will need to step up, and this is that time they need to give klopp the better part of £300mil to get us back to the top. Come the end of the season we are already going to see ox, keita, Milner and firmino leave for free.

From 2017-2021 (the last four years of published Deloitte data) we spent exactly the same % of revenue on player costs - transfer fees plus wages - as United and City. That is a significantly higher portion than Spurs, who have spent £500m less on wages in that time (57% 20/21, below 50% prior to that) and only £3m higher net spend (before this summer). Our net spend in that time was higher than Chelsea's (before this summer), though they've spent a little more as % of revenue overall. Arsenal have switched to 'sugar daddy mode' since Kroenke took sole ownership, but their wage bill is unsustainably high (75% of revenue, which will get worse if young players get new contracts, or they'll need to sell; Chelsea's is 76%) and haven't won anything yet.

[El Lobo]

How much were Chelsea bought for?

£3 billion to Ukraine? No idea KH you tell me, you're pretty sharp on finances

[Stockholm Syndrome]

My reply was deliberately obtuse to that poster. The issue I have with posts like his is that it comes across like we should be grateful at this sort of hostage situation FSG have us in. It may not be what the poster meant, but it comes across like it.

Where I stand on it is that I like FSG as owners. I have never wanted them to leave and hope they own the club for a long time. I dont believe they are as committed to winning as we would like but I do think they have mitigation as to why they havent spent as much recently, but lets see going forward. Even if they dont spend much this coming summer, I still dont want them out.

I think most fans want FSG to stay as well. Or at least there isnt anywhere near a clamour for them to leave.

As a side point, it may just be my politics but the way I stand is I dont really want to defend venture capitalists. As long as its not death threats or really unsavoury, people can criticise away.

That is absolutely the unfortunate vice we are in - criticize all we want but the alternative ownership options available are not fantastic just by note of how expensive we are as a club now - very few business orientated owners are going to buy a $4 Billion club, the value and return isn't worth the investment for many.

While many could, very few would be interested. The interest will come from High Net Worth individuals who want to own a football club as a sign of "Look at how rich I am", or a few big states may want to buy (but they are more likely to buy a cheaper club line Leeds or Southampton perhaps).

So alternative owners are not ideal, so it just comes down to saying I want FSG to spend more, which I think we all pretty much do. But how they spend more money is either with their own personal wealth (which we know they won't do, and I don't think from a business stand point it is intelligent to do) or with loans which as we know from our pretty recent past, is incredibly risky and can get you in a lot of shit.

The only real recourse we have is to say we want more spent on the team, but there is no real good solid solution as to how we change our model to facilitate that, as the models are far from perfect.

They have to spend more, but I can't say there is a good way for them to do that, now that our hands are somewhat tied with training facilities and the new stand.

Or there is money available and we just chose not to spend it, which is just a fuck up and we have to allow more risks in the market. Which is a relatively easy solution they just have to loosen the grip a bit.

[Eeyore]

I love the way posters on here stamp their feet and throw their toys out of the pram when posting about City and Newcastle. Basically what they say is that it is impossible to compete with them because they are nation States.

Newcastle are held up as an example because they have gone from looking like relegation certainties to top four candidates in a year. They then cite their £200m Net spend as the reason why that has happened.

However when you point out that Liverpool have committed more than that to buying FSG new assets. Then all of a sudden Net spend doesn't matter. There are a myriad of other reasons from training to formations, Jurgens lack of flexibility or the medical staff.

In short Net Spend is a brilliant weapon when they want to attack City or Newcastle but is apparently irrelevant when it comes to FSG.

For me what FSG need to do is to spend as close to the FFP limits as they can and then make formal complaints when anyone else breaches FFP. The sad reality is that we spend nowhere near as much as we can. The other thing is FSG conveniently turn a blind eye to Nation States pumping money into the game. Not only that but they when they helped come up with the secret ESL plan then City and PSG were amongst the first teams invited.

When Klopp called out the likes of City, Newcastle and PSG the silence from FSG was deafening. Surely if they were concerned about FFP or losing titles to City then it was a perfect opportunity to air their grievances. They could have questioned the Nation States levels of spending, they could have asked why the Premier League still haven't acted on City's 13/14 breaches Well documented by Der Spiegal.

Well for me the reason is quite simple the Nation States pouring money into the game makes them richer. The more money that gets into the game then the value of clubs increases. Look at how purses have gone up in boxing or the value of F1 has increased since the sportswashers have got involved.

The sportswashers gives them two things an excuse not to push the envelope and invest and above all it makes them much richer. Much better to keep quiet watch the value of LFC grow exponentially and wait for the end game.

For me there are only two endings here either people get fed up with the Nation States dominating and we get a NFL style ESL with mechanisms to level the playing field or if that doesn't happen then FSG cash out to a Nation state themselves.

Either way they make an absolute killing.

So for me we will just be in a state of flux until the ESL plays out. FSG will just be happy for us to plod on costing them nothing. Why risk investing when top four means very little to the prospects of an ESL invite as Arsenal and Spurs found out.

[El Lobo]

Just when you think Al completely has the upper hand, an FSG thread mainly negative towards the owners, he throws in a curveball like 'FSG are just ad bad as the state owners'

[Redric1970]

From 2017-2021 (the last four years of published Deloitte data) we spent exactly the same % of revenue on player costs - transfer fees plus wages - as United and City. That is a significantly higher portion than Spurs, who have spent £500m less on wages in that time (57% 20/21, below 50% prior to that) and only £3m higher net spend (before this summer). Our net spend in that time was higher than Chelsea's (before this summer), though they've spent a little more as % of revenue overall. Arsenal have switched to 'sugar daddy mode' since Kroenke took sole ownership, but their wage bill is unsustainably high (75% of revenue, which will get worse if young players get new contracts, or they'll need to sell; Chelsea's is 76%) and haven't won anything yet.

All these facts and figures are lovely the main fact for us supporters is that we have an ancient midfield that needed money spent on it and we haven’t and if anyone thinks this season will get any better without spending significant amount of cash they will be disappointed because the legs in the engine room have gone, so in all honesty percentages for this and that won’t change the fact the team is in decline and if we keep going with those brilliant percentages it won’t improve, we haven’t won an away game this season in the league this season we were lucky to get nick the win against West Ham and were lucky to nab an injury time winner against Newcastle. The team needs massive investment and if these owners won’t do it get ready for trying to challenge for the top
4 and europa league each year that’s the main fact.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

How much were Chelsea bought for?

They were actively on sale, all debt was cleared, and for all we know after the initial first big windows spend they could end up following a model similar to ours.

A consortium like Boehly's wouldn't spend £4 billion on a club just to throw money down a hole (especially since Boehly himself is "only" worth £5.4 billion apparently) either they wish to run it as a business like FSG, or as some rumours would have it, Saudi are a silent partner and the money behind it all.

It's a tricky situation. I don't want FSG to go I think they are the best owners I can currently see for us. I also think they have to be less stringent in the transfer market, absolutely. I also don't know how they can be which doesn't have it's own drawbacks.

It's a hard one

[Coolie High]

You miss my point and need to incorporate that reference in relation to the overall point of the post, which in simple terms is, FSG won't spend if they don't think they are finding value in the market.  You could argue that Alisson was around his true market value, but to my eye he was the exception.

So yes, by fans demanding FSG spend they are asking FSG to emulate Barcelona by buying anything and anyone to fill spots.  Perhaps fans need to realise that we aren't spending because we are waiting for the right players at the right valuation.  Whether you agree with that method or not doesn't matter, that is how FSG operate and as I summarised it has lead us to this point so far.

IMO the reason most fans take issue with this is because of what Man City have done to distort the market.  Pre-City this wouldn't have been a problem, but now everyone wants us to compete with City.  FSG aren't going to do that.

Are city the only club to outspend us in this league?

[killer-heels]

That is absolutely the unfortunate vice we are in - criticize all we want but the alternative ownership options available are not fantastic just by note of how expensive we are as a club now - very few business orientated owners are going to buy a $4 Billion club, the value and return isn't worth the investment for many.

While many could, very few would be interested. The interest will come from High Net Worth individuals who want to own a football club as a sign of "Look at how rich I am", or a few big states may want to buy (but they are more likely to buy a cheaper club line Leeds or Southampton perhaps).

So alternative owners are not ideal, so it just comes down to saying I want FSG to spend more, which I think we all pretty much do. But how they spend more money is either with their own personal wealth (which we know they won't do, and I don't think from a business stand point it is intelligent to do) or with loans which as we know from our pretty recent past, is incredibly risky and can get you in a lot of shit.

The only real recourse we have is to say we want more spent on the team, but there is no real good solid solution as to how we change our model to facilitate that, as the models are far from perfect.

They have to spend more, but I can't say there is a good way for them to do that, now that our hands are somewhat tied with training facilities and the new stand.

Or there is money available and we just chose not to spend it, which is just a fuck up and we have to allow more risks in the market. Which is a relatively easy solution they just have to loosen the grip a bit.

Either way they will have to spend more. In terms of investment into the ground, they should be putting that money in themselves. Otherwise quite frankly what you can accuse them of is not being bothered about competing. Is that the owners you would like?

I hope that an excuse to not spend this summer is because we spent on the stadium.

[Dr Stu-Pid]

Those players I've bolded, I mean, I don't know where to start...

Thanks for posting your reply, saved me from having to write exactly what you did!

Bottom line, if we were top of the net spend (apart from City, United and Chelsea) we would have another 2 league titles and a European Cup, minimum.

This is the other line of thinking that really makes me shake my head. We have lost titles to Man City with 97 and 92 points and lost a CL final that we completely dominated. There is absolutely no way of knowing if signing additional players would have made any difference whatsoever to those outcomes, and in fact there is no way of knowing if adding players may have actually caused us to score fewer points than we did in those seasons. Maybe the player that you sign gets sent off in a game that we won and would have turned it into a loss, or would have made an error which lead to an equalizer, or maybe squad harmony was affected, or maybe Klopp would have changed tactics and team shape which could have affected the outcome of every game that season. They are all complete unknowns.

When you are an 75- 80 point team then single players can make a huge difference, but the more points you accumulate the potential for marginal gains by adding one or two players diminishes massively, and in fact it can easily go the other way. When you are that close to perfection and putting up seasons that are the best that the PL has ever seen then whether or not you win or lose the title comes down to key moments.  That can be luck, refereeing decisions, or just a missed chance or mistake at the wrong time. When we finished with 97 points we had a ball fail to cross the line by 4mm, Kompany not being sent off, and the same player then scoring to win a game with a 1 in 1,000 shot from outside the box. Last season with 92 points we had the two penalty decisions that won City two games they would probably have drawn, and both Salah and Mane having a shocker against Leicester in a game we dominated, plus a few very uncharacteristic mistakes from Alisson which cost us points.

In seasons like this current one or 2020/21 then you can definitely make a very good case that additional players in key areas would have made a huge difference, but we can't try to rewrite history and say what would have happened in 2018/19 or 2021/22.

[Stockholm Syndrome]

Either way they will have to spend more. In terms of investment into the ground, they should be putting that money in themselves. Otherwise quite frankly what you can accuse them of is not being bothered about competing. Is that the owners you would like?

No absolutely not, I want owners bothered about competing of course. But I am weary of the somewhat limited options available for alternative owners, and while they have to get more money on the team I don't think it is as simple a solution as we make out, and it is not without risks.

They need to do more by I understand and empathize with their position, and despite it all I still think they are the best owners available for us.

[Eeyore]

Just when you think Al completely has the upper hand, an FSG thread mainly negative towards the owners, he throws in a curveball like 'FSG are just ad bad as the state owners'

I think you should point out the bit where I stated that FSG was just as bad as the State owners.

You know the bit in which I accused FSG of running a brutal regime, banning homosexuality, using slave labour, state assassinations and capital punishment?

If you can't then please stop taking potshots at posters and let the adults get on with actually debating the issues. 

[killer-heels]

No absolutely not, I want owners bothered about competing of course. But I am weary of the somewhat limited options available for alternative owners, and while they have to get more money on the team I don't think it is as simple a solution as we make out, and it is not without risks.

They need to do more by I understand and empathize with their position, and despite it all I still think they are the best owners available for us.

It is risk, but they dont really have a choice.

[Coolie High]

Either way they will have to spend more. In terms of investment into the ground, they should be putting that money in themselves. Otherwise quite frankly what you can accuse them of is not being bothered about competing. Is that the owners you would like?

I hope that an excuse to not spend this summer is because we spent on the stadium.

The excuses never run out it’s very reminiscent of Arsenal under Wenger both the peaks and highs of having a once in a lifetime manager, and also the eventual eroding of all the work done by said manager and his team by owners who were far more concerned with simply doing the bare minimum(finish top 4) it’ll be a shame for us because I’m not sure any other manager in the world could get the success we had under Klopp, under this same board, we’ve had some good times but we could have truly created a dynasty if we had a board who could match and exceed Klopps expectation( in the transfer market).

A lot of good things we have done in the last couple years have been reactive, even Luis Diaz signing which was the one event that allowed us to almost win the quadruple was forced upon us due to Spurs interest, without their interest we would have got him in the summer and probably not have had enough of a strike force to compete on four fronts, instances like this are indication of a board who is not quite aware of the situation of having a one off manager who won’t be here forever.

[El Lobo]

I think you should point out the bit where I stated that FSG was just as bad as the State owners.

You know the bit in which I accused FSG of running a brutal regime, banning homosexuality, using slave labour, state assassinations and capital punishment?

If you can't then please stop taking potshots at posters and let the adults get on with actually debating the issues.

I'm not going to quote your whole post Al because it was a load of old muck the first time and people dont deserve to have to read it twice

[redmark]

All these facts and figures are lovely the main fact for us supporters is that we have an ancient midfield that needed money spent on it and we haven’t and if anyone thinks this season will get any better without spending significant amount of cash they will be disappointed because the legs in the engine room have gone, so in all honesty percentages for this and that won’t change the fact the team is in decline and if we keep going with those brilliant percentages it won’t improve.

I don't disagree much about our midfield. I was responding to your assertion of us "not competing spend wise". We do compete; but our squad management has allowed the side to age (and with ageing comes higher wages, lower net spending). People ignore wages and think NET SPEND! Big six spending on players is 84% wages/16% net spend. (Ours has been 85%/15%).

I actually take Al's point that FSG could invest some of their own funds on the basis that the value of the club has massively increased. They haven't; they almost certainly won't, which is regrettable. From their point of view, they'd probably point to fans demanding more expenditure while simultaneously opposing higher ticket prices, furlough, ESL and NFTs (all rightly).

We know what our model is. On balance, it's preferable to most others. The figures over recent years suggest we did have some money to spend in the summer, but couldn't get the player(s) we wanted so didn't spend it (a recruitment team/manager tendency, rather than an FSG one). FSG could be more risk averse. So could the recruitment team/manager, at times.

[Eeyore]

You miss my point and need to incorporate that reference in relation to the overall point of the post, which in simple terms is, FSG won't spend if they don't think they are finding value in the market.  You could argue that Alisson was around his true market value, but to my eye he was the exception.

So yes, by fans demanding FSG spend they are asking FSG to emulate Barcelona by buying anything and anyone to fill spots.  Perhaps fans need to realise that we aren't spending because we are waiting for the right players at the right valuation.  Whether you agree with that method or not doesn't matter, that is how FSG operate and as I summarised it has lead us to this point so far.

IMO the reason most fans take issue with this is because of what Man City have done to distort the market.  Pre-City this wouldn't have been a problem, but now everyone wants us to compete with City.  FSG aren't going to do that.

Life is what it is you don't starve yourself because the cost of food has gone and you can't find value. Some things are just unavoidable. If you own a Football club then maintaining and refreshing the squad is a necessity, not a luxury.

As for spending like Barca who has asked for that ?

I want LFC to spend what it generates on the playing staff and not on infrastructure which should be the owner's responsibility especially when their investment has risen 10 fold.

[Suareznumber7]

FSG can be shrewd businessmen, they can also be tight as hell.

The one thing I can say is that I happen to know one of John Henry's personal assistants in Boston. She is a Liverpool fan before the club was bought and yet when she wants to go to games, she gets sent a bill to pay by her boss for the cost of tickets.

That would be for tax reasons.  It would be considered by the IRS to be compensation and would need to be taxed appropriately.  Employers giving their employees gifts like that without accounting for it is against the law in the US.