Topic: FSG discussion thread

[Eeyore]

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

So you lied about me saying FSG were as bad as the Nation States then?

[lollysportswasher]

They knew they couldn't compete with PSG/CITY/Chelsea/United so the only way was cooperate with Madrid/Juventus and form the ESL. I think the ESL is coming for sure.

[El Lobo]

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.

Thats pretty much it really, as balanced as anything in this thread. No absolute muck like 'you cant complain about the Saudis spending £200 million net in the last year when FSG have spent £200 million on infrastructure'

[CowboyKangaroo]

What's the online equivalent of being tarred and feathered? Because whatever it is that should happen to you for this trainwreck of a post. 

[lionel_messias]

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.

In essence, FSG are capitalists, waiting patiently to see their investments grow, as all good investors do.

It is worth pointing out that Liverpool fans can't exactly man the barracades if we slip into 'top 4' contention and stagnate, compared to our title-winning status and the heritage of the club. It will be massive opportunities lost, of course.

It would be down to Klopp to be more vocal to shift this situation and we have to be clear, it is NOT just City and Newcastle we would not be competing with, it must be said it will be Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Man United and our transfer investments will be on a par or worse than other lower clubs.

I believe these next two windows will reveal all, if FSG don't budge then Klopp will have to speak out. Perhaps they will and we are all reading too much into the last 3-4 years.

Time will tell.

[lollysportswasher]

Everyone saying state owners are bad but I also would rather not be owned by a Trump backing billionaires either in case if the FSG sells in club in the future. Imagine a socialist club like Liverpool being owned by a right wing Trump nutjob no thanks.

[Redric1970]

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.

The real eye openers for me is the fact that they made £500mil by selling 10% and went straight out and bought another sports team, also the fact that they paid £300mil for us and we now have £200mil of debt that’s disgusting considering they paid £300mil for a club that’s now worth a reported £4.5billion. Don’t get me wrong I know there are worse owners out there but there is also better owners, if we continue the way we are we can 100% forget title challenges and I’m pretty sure champions league places will become a challenge in itself.

[Eeyore]

Thats pretty much it really, as balanced as anything in this thread. No absolute muck like 'you cant complain about the Saudis spending £200 million net in the last year when FSG have spent £200 million on infrastructure'

You are deliberately missing the point.

What you cannot do is use Net spend as a clear reason that Newcastle have improved and then pretend Net spend wouldn't have an effect on Liverpool. That is what certain posters are doing.

[vblfc]

Some good posts that make you think. It's quite complex but common themes.
Think we can assume FFP isn't going to stick, so that model has gone (if not, FSG need to fight it themselves asap)
We can see that the club's overall value is growing despite the market having big transfer fees etc.  So that's probably going to continue. So - Our value will likely continue to grow if we are competitive (clearly best is winning trophies, or at least top 4 competitive).  So, non state owned clubs are forced into spending more to stay in the race.
Conclusion should be - club spending now looks to need to increase to compete at the very top.
However - Nothing wrong with seeking value from all of our business, that doesn't mean we can't spend more, we should just spend it wisely, we know how to do this. This is an edge we have.
So we can't use the FFP framework anymore as our model to "stay within our means and compete"
We need to increase our (value based) spending to continue to compete and ensure that the overall value of the club increases allowing owners to prosper. That's where we are I think.
FSG just need to face the reality of the current model, (now post FFP and including state owned wildcards).  The owners will still do very well from this, just possibly not as well as the FFP constrained model would have looked to them.  They need to adapt, because I suspect the gap between the "winners and losers" who are not state owned will grow now. The risk/reward to FSG now increases.

[El Lobo]

Everyone saying state owners are bad but I also would rather not be owned by a Trump backing billionaires either in case if the FSG sells in club in the future.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Damn, I would have to say that is a pretty sharp take on things. In essence, FSG are capitalists, waiting patiently to see their investments grow, as all good investors do.

It is worth pointing out that Liverpool fans can't exactly man the barracades if we slip into 'top 4' contention and stagnate, compared to our title-winning status and the heritage of the club. It will be massive opportunities lost, of course.

It would be down to Klopp to be more vocal to shift this situation and we have to be clear, it is NOT just City and Newcastle we would not be competing with, it must be said it will be Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Man United and our transfer investments will be on a par or worse than other lower clubs.

I believe these next two windows will reveal all, if FSG don't budge then Klopp will have to speak out. Perhaps they will and we are all reading too much into the last 3-4 years.

Time will tell.

This is pretty much where I am with it all, but maybe the next 3 or 4 windows. Once the ARE and AXA have washed through the books, there really will be no excuse. FSG have been pragmatic so far on the main stand repayments and the balance may drop further in the next accounts. If they subsequently take a balloon payment to clear it instead of the 10-15m pa that we've seen so far then thee may be a bit of unrest!

[El Lobo]

This is pretty much where I am with it all, but maybe the next 3 or 4 windows. Once the ARE and AXA have washed through the books, there really will be no excuse. FSG have been pragmatic so far on the main stand repayments and the balance may drop further in the next accounts. If they subsequently take a balloon payment to clear it instead of the 10-15m pa that we've seen so far then thee may be a bit of unrest!

Aye, there have been (pretty valid) excuses about why we haven't gone 'big' previously. We cant talk about us bidding for Tchouameni and Bellingham and then not go big in subsequent windows. If they wanted to really stifle the current increase in criticism they'd have a pretty big deal for a CM sorted for January the 1st.

[redmark]

You are deliberately missing the point.

What you cannot do is use Net spend as a clear reason that Newcastle have improved and then pretend Net spend wouldn't have an effect on Liverpool. That is what certain posters are doing.

I think that point was made (not by me) in response to an assertion that spending more would have 'guaranteed' us an extra couple of titles and a CL, which it wouldn't. But sure, buying (and keeping) the right players always makes a team better. Identifying which players are right (and available, and affordable) is the tricky bit.

[lionel_messias]

Aye, there have been (pretty valid) excuses about why we haven't gone 'big' previously. We cant talk about us bidding for Tchouameni and Bellingham and then not go big in subsequent windows. If they wanted to really stifle the current increase in criticism they'd have a pretty big deal for a CM sorted for January the 1st.

Agree on Jan 1st and there is also an element of Klopp/Edwards/Ward declining certain players. Klopp must know by now that he needs younger players in. We're not now in the place to go for the perfect player who will be "the one" to transform the team. 3-4 Konate-types (in profile and age, not position) and one significant midfielder in January. No point mentioning names in this thread but this player would go enough to stand in for Thiago and also good enough to be his equal partner in a midfield '2'. We don't have to spend £80 on that player but we should have a deal ready.

[Eeyore]

The real eye openers for me is the fact that they made £500mil by selling 10% and went straight out and bought another sports team, also the fact that they paid £300mil for us and we now have £200mil of debt that’s disgusting considering they paid £300mil for a club that’s now worth a reported £4.5billion. Don’t get me wrong I know there are worse owners out there but there is also better owners, if we continue the way we are we can 100% forget title challenges and I’m pretty sure champions league places will become a challenge in itself.

It is not just buying another Sports team. They have used the increased value of LFC and to a lesser extent the Red Sox to spend £656m on the Penguins. Whilst doing that they have dramatically cut back on spending at both LFC and the Red Sox.

In both 2018 and 2019 the Boston Red Sox had the highest payroll in baseball in 2018 their payroll was $235m. That has fallen to such an extent that they are now 6th on $195m.





In that timeframe over the last 4 seasons Liverpool's Net spend has fallen to 15th.




So from the outside, it looks like FSG may have stopped spending on LFC and the Red Sox to facilitate their purchase of the Penguins. This raises question marks over how they intend to purchase an NBA team. Will it be more austerity for LFC whilst FSG use the increased value of LFC to purchase more franchises.

[keyop]

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.

That's a great post Prof.

I think the pandemic is a really key point that was overlooked by many in terms of the effect on our situation - many clubs (including us) took out low interest loans to cover costs, so that we could ride it out and protect our cash reserves. At the time, we had no idea whether the pandemic would last 6 months or several years, so I personally didn't find it surprising that summer 2020 and 2021 were relatively risk-averse transfer windows.

The more I read this thread, the more I can also see that whilst there's things we could've (and maybe should've) done differently, there was so much of our situation that was circumstantial/unplanned, with lots of things happening around the same time:

1. The pandemic in March 2020
2. Finishing the season behind closed doors with no fans and no parade
3. The CB injury crisis in early 2021
4. Kirkby and ARE developments in 2021/22
5. Contract extensions and pay rises between 2020 and 2022 for all our key players
6. Players unavailable for extended long periods (Virgil, Matip, Gomez, Ox, Keita, Thiago, Jota)
7. A quadruple push and 63 games last season
8. A shortened pre-season, a Far East tour, and an early start to 2022/3
9. A collective drop-off in physicality and mentality this season
10. A ton more injuries in Aug/Sept/Oct

That's a perfect storm of events and a hell of of a lot of things going on in just 2 years - some of which is within FSG's control, but most of it they couldn't directly influence. Even the much-debated midfield gaps this season don't explain why players like Trent, Fabinho, Virgil and even Mo look completely off their game at times, or why so many of our players only need to step onto the pitch to pick up an injury.

I think FSG (and other owners) have less control on some of the outcomes than many assume. They might own the club, but when (for example) they committed £150m on Ox/Keita's fees and wages, they probably didn't expect them to have so little impact, or to be paying them to be in the treatment room. £150m is not an insignificant sum, and without demeaning our players, I think it's fair to say it's ultimately been money wasted - even though at the time most of us agreed they were good signings. We simply can't afford that kind of misfortune when we're up against City. They don't have a transfer ceiling or any jeopardy when buying players - if they'd bought Ox/Keita instead, they'd simply write them off and go out and spend another £80-£90m on another two players. Even Utd can seemingly buy whoever they like, and their list of expensive flops since 2013 is insane - although perhaps their share price drop, crumbling stadium, lack of CL revenue and £550m of debt might finally catch up with them (although this summer showed the funds are still there for now).

Without sounding like a stuck record, I also don't think people realise how clubs that are run sustainably really do suffer when transfers don't work out and the players can't be moved on. I'm almost certain we'd have sold more players if the right buyer/offer came in, but of course that depends if they want to leave. You certainly can't blame some of them for wanting to be part of Jurgen's world for as long as possible, being around this team and club every day, and enjoying the amazing ride of the last 5 years.

[Eeyore]

Some good posts that make you think. It's quite complex but common themes.
Think we can assume FFP isn't going to stick, so that model has gone (if not, FSG need to fight it themselves asap)

Why would FSG fight for FFP when they have profited massively from it being circumvented?

They received £50m from Chelsea for Torres, £49m from City for Sterling and then the £142m for Coutinho was basically a chunk of what PSG paid Barca for Neymar.

[redmark]

Why would FSG fight for FFP when they have profited massively from it being circumvented?

They received £50m from Chelsea for Torres, £49m from City for Sterling and then the £142m for Coutinho was basically a chunk of what PSG paid Barca for Neymar.

Surely 'the club' received that money, not FSG. Otherwise, we shouldn't be deducting it from net spend calculations. I know you know this, but "they have profited massively", "they received £50m/£49m/£142m" is a little opaque. And simultaneously transparent .

[T.Mills]

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

Not sure how you can say we didnt overpay for Virg and Allison, they we’re eye watering amounts of money at the time. Mane was by no way ‘amazing’, he scored 11 goals the season before we signed him. For context a premier league winning midfielder in Kante went for 30mil.

No idea what your getting at with point 3, i didnt call anyone out I’m  saying we paid on the cheap, and moved them on when it ‘inevitably’ didn't work.

Point 4, again no idea where thats come from. The point i was making was that if you keep ‘looking for value’ you’ll end up landing some duds. As proven.

[keyop]

One other thing that's already cropped up on this thread (and many others over the years), is how the owners somehow 'got lucky with Coutinho', or even that the 'Coutinho sale paid for everything'. It's a false argument, but is often made to suggest that one 'lucky windfall' for the owners was the only thing that allowed us to build a world class team. In reality, we sold Coutinho in January 2018 and his fee didn't even cover the Alisson/Virgil transfers. Between 2016/17 and 2021/22 we also signed Mane, Wijnaldum, Salah, Ox, Robertson, Keita, Fabinho, Shaqiri, Thiago, Jota, Tsimikas, Konate and Diaz. Virgil/Alisson were the marquee signings, but without those other players we acquired (at considerable expense), there is no number 19 or number 6, no getting to 3 CL finals in 5 seasons, no missing out the title by a point (twice), no FA or League cup, and certainly no quadruple push.

So we have invested over the years, but I think a combination of timing, injuries, the pandemic, and a myriad other factors (not least the oil cheats) are largely what has prevented us from adding even more to our trophy haul. The difference between what we've won, and us now having 21 titles/8 CL's is incredibly small. I know its all if's, but's and maybes, but we were a couple of shocking refereeing decisions (and 11mm) away from winning the title in 2018/19, a Rodri handball and non-Villa collapse from the title last season, a Ramos tackle/Karius concussion away from the CL in 2018, and we'd arguably have won the CL in May, had we not been on our knees after playing 62 games in the previous 9 months.

We also had the Europa and League cup finals in 2016, so however disappointed some may feel about how many trophies we've won or that we 'haven't maximised Jurgen's time with us' - in the whole scheme of things we have done incredibly well. There are also plenty of mitigating circumstances for where we've fallen short - the biggest of which is a cheating club owned by a corrupt nation state that spent £1.5billion on players in 10 years through illegal means.

[kloppismydad]

Just have 100-150m net-spend each transfer window. It's well within our means and with the structure we have, we would go huge with it.

[El Lobo]

Just have 100-150m net-spend each transfer window. It's well within our means and with the structure we have, we would go huge with it.

So £300 million net every season? Yes well within our means.

[kloppismydad]

So £300 million net every season? Yes well within our means.

Combined for summer and winter. Don't think 100m is unreasonable for #4 ranked club based on valuations.

[Dr Stu-Pid]

In both 2018 and 2019 the Boston Red Sox had the highest payroll in baseball in 2018 their payroll was $235m. That has fallen to such an extent that they are now 6th on $195m.

So from the outside, it looks like FSG may have stopped spending on LFC and the Red Sox to facilitate their purchase of the Penguins.

Are you going to add the nuance that the Red Sox needed to get below the luxury tax threshold in 2020 in order to reset the penalties which will apply in future seasons? Or does that not fit the narrative? Those aren't just financial penalties by the way, they affect draft picks as well.

Also, their spend this year was $221m which was in 5th place.

[Eeyore]

Surely 'the club' received that money, not FSG. Otherwise, we shouldn't be deducting it from net spend calculations. I know you know this, but "they have profited massively", "they received £50m/£49m/£142m" is a little opaque. And simultaneously transparent .

Not really.

Given that FSG have made it clear they are not going to fund transfers then without the Torres fee there would have been no Suarez. Without the Coutinho fee there would have been no Ali or Van Dijk.

Those transfers took us to another level. That other level resulted in half a billion in extra revenues. Those extra revenues resulted in the value of the Club skyrocketing. The value of the Club skyrocketing allowed FSG to raise £533m from Redbird.

So for me, there is a clear link between receiving money from the oil states and FSG getting richer.

[Eeyore]

Are you going to add the nuance that the Red Sox needed to get below the luxury tax threshold in 2020 in order to reset the penalties which will apply in future seasons? Or does that not fit the narrative? Those aren't just financial penalties by the way, they affect draft picks as well.

Also, their spend this year was $221m which was in 5th place.

Could you provide a link for the Red Sox payroll because every site I have seen has them at 6th or 7th.

[keyop]

Until you explain the circumstances of why you've posted something so incredibly wrong [perhaps you're recovering from a brain injury for example] then any other post is rendered firmly null and void.

The post wasn't great, but let's keep the personal insults to a minimum on this thread? It's certainly bad enough elsewhere.

[johnathank]

The Super League was a good idea and would have been good for Liverpool. The elephant in the room.

No reason to read the rest of what you have to say if you believe this.

[Sharado]

The post wasn't great, but let's keep the personal insults to a minimum on this thread? It's certainly bad enough elsewhere.

fine, removed.

[redmark]

So for me, there is a clear link between receiving money from the oil states and FSG getting richer.

I read that point when you made it previously and don't object to it. But it's not "They received £50m/£49m/£142m", which is subtly but significantly different, muddying the waters between FSG giving/taking cash and the club spending what it earns.

[James...]

The lack of investment from summer 2019 until now has been one of the most shambolic runs i’ve ever seen from any top club.

It’s verged on managed declined quite frankly. And the fact so many people saw it coming. (Yet were called every name under the sun by a certain section of the fanbase) makes it all the more ridiculous. We’ve won less than we should have and that’s mostly thanks to lack of investment.

Jurgen managed a 97 point league season and won the CL in 18/19… he got ZERO senior outfielders signed and had Mignolet replaced by Adrian fucking San Miguel literally because he was free. He then manages to win the league in incredible fashion but the side is utterly goosed by February, combined with the dire back up GK, and it costs us a truly special season be it points records or multiple trophies.

Then what happens summer 2020? The utter farce of no CB to replace Lovren. Everyone with a brain sees it will cost us. And it cost us. And they then support the manager with Kabak on loan and Ben Davies for 500k on fucking deadline day in January.

Then summer 2021… they sign ONE PLAYER !! One fucking player. Our most reliable midfielder leaves. We sign nobody, despite Covid still taking players out of games etc and our midfield already being full of injuries prone lads. We then are throughout the season coming up against City, Spurs, Chelsea with the likes of Jones, Morton, Milner all starting. Miss the league by a point. Champions league final thrown in to chaos as the manager would rather have a 60% fit Thiago start than Naby Keita.

Then summer 2022… astounding. We sign two teenagers and a lad who himself is a project at 23. And AGAIN ignore the midfield. An issue that should have been sorted in summer 21 and we leave it again.

The complete lack of ambition to stay at the top… i’ve never seen anything like it. And to then sit there with a straight face and talk about ‘we only sign the right player’ … was Minamino the right player? Kabak? Davies? Arthur fucking Melo? Rested on our laurels and the chicken have came home to roost.

This side should have been refreshed constantly to keep it ticking over. It hasn’t. Now it needs a huge rebuild and what are the chance that they stump up for that? Close to zero I’d say. We need £200-300m net on this side to even get close to being back to our 2018-2020 period. The fact we’re now back to the bottom of the hill and have to climb all the way back up again because this lot couldn’t put their hand in the pocket to support the greatest manager on earth and a man who’s lined their fucking pockets by making this club relevant again is infuriating.

They’ll x10 their investment on this club. And about £1.5B of it will legit be completely down to the genius of this manager. And they wouldn’t even back him. The fuck you think will happen when he goes and they hire their next Brendan Rodgers?

[Eeyore]

One other thing that's already cropped up on this thread (and many others over the years), is how the owners somehow 'got lucky with Coutinho', or even that the 'Coutinho sale paid for everything'. It's a false argument, but is often made to suggest that one 'lucky windfall' for the owners was the only thing that allowed us to build a world class team. In reality, we sold Coutinho in January 2018 and his fee didn't even cover the Alisson/Virgil transfers. Between 2016/17 and 2021/22 we also signed Mane, Wijnaldum, Salah, Ox, Robertson, Keita, Fabinho, Shaqiri, Thiago, Jota, Tsimikas, Konate and Diaz. Virgil/Alisson were the marquee signings, but without those other players we acquired (at considerable expense), there is no number 19 or number 6, no getting to 3 CL finals in 5 seasons, no missing out the title by a point (twice), no FA or League cup, and certainly no quadruple push.

So we have invested over the years, but I think a combination of timing, injuries, the pandemic, and a myriad other factors (not least the oil cheats) are largely what has prevented us from adding even more to our trophy haul. The difference between what we've won, and us now having 21 titles/8 CL's is incredibly small. I know its all if's, but's and maybes, but we were a couple of shocking refereeing decisions (and 11mm) away from winning the title in 2018/19, a Rodri handball and non-Villa collapse from the title last season, a Ramos tackle/Karius concussion away from the CL in 2018, and we'd arguably have won the CL in May, had we not been on our knees after playing 62 games in the previous 9 months.

We also had the Europa and League cup finals in 2016, so however disappointed some may feel about how many trophies we've won or that we 'haven't maximised Jurgen's time with us' - in the whole scheme of things we have done incredibly well. There are also plenty of mitigating circumstances for where we've fallen short - the biggest of which is a cheating club owned by a corrupt nation state that spent £1.5billion on players in 10 years through illegal means.

Nice try looking to pretend that Coutinho is the only player we have sold since 16/17 and then listing a whole host of players we have bought.

In addition to the sale of Coutinho we have also raised £350m from selling other players. So we have raised just shy of half a billion from player sales.

The brilliant bit though is quite correctly stating that City have won things because of their Net spend. However as usual you then come up with every excuse under the sun for why Net spend isn't the reason we have failed to get over the line.

Can't you see the rank hypocrisy for stating that City have only won things through spending money and then defending FSG for not spending and using transfer revenues for Cap Ex spending.

Either Net spend relates directly to onfield success or it doesn't. 

[LFCTikiTaka]

One other thing that's already cropped up on this thread (and many others over the years), is how the owners somehow 'got lucky with Coutinho', or even that the 'Coutinho sale paid for everything'. It's a false argument, but is often made to suggest that one 'lucky windfall' for the owners was the only thing that allowed us to build a world class team. In reality, we sold Coutinho in January 2018 and his fee didn't even cover the Alisson/Virgil transfers. Between 2016/17 and 2021/22 we also signed Mane, Wijnaldum, Salah, Ox, Robertson, Keita, Fabinho, Shaqiri, Thiago, Jota, Tsimikas, Konate and Diaz. Virgil/Alisson were the marquee signings, but without those other players we acquired (at considerable expense), there is no number 19 or number 6, no getting to 3 CL finals in 5 seasons, no missing out the title by a point (twice), no FA or League cup, and certainly no quadruple push.

So we have invested over the years, but I think a combination of timing, injuries, the pandemic, and a myriad other factors (not least the oil cheats) are largely what has prevented us from adding even more to our trophy haul. The difference between what we've won, and us now having 21 titles/8 CL's is incredibly small. I know its all if's, but's and maybes, but we were a couple of shocking refereeing decisions (and 11mm) away from winning the title in 2018/19, a Rodri handball and non-Villa collapse from the title last season, a Ramos tackle/Karius concussion away from the CL in 2018, and we'd arguably have won the CL in May, had we not been on our knees after playing 62 games in the previous 9 months.

We also had the Europa and League cup finals in 2016, so however disappointed some may feel about how many trophies we've won or that we 'haven't maximised Jurgen's time with us' - in the whole scheme of things we have done incredibly well. There are also plenty of mitigating circumstances for where we've fallen short - the biggest of which is a cheating club owned by a corrupt nation state that spent £1.5billion on players in 10 years through illegal means.

John Henry confirmed to the New York Times back in 2019 that Alisson, Fabinho and Van Dijk would not have been signed without the sale of Coutinho. You can read it here - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/magazine/soccer-data-liverpool.amp.html

So no it didn't fund everything, but it funded alot.

[redmark]

The Super League was a good idea and would have been good for Liverpool. The elephant in the room.

Sky went apoplectic over it because it would have been a disaster for them. And then the fans bought it hook, line and sinker.

The Super League would have been good for Liverpool and therefore some Liverpool fans thought it a good idea.

For anyone actually on RAWK that day, most fans were vehemently opposed without watching Sky and before Gary Neville spoke. Because it was wrong.

[Suareznumber7]

Could you provide a link for the Red Sox payroll because every site I have seen has them at 6th or 7th.

The last site I found had them 6th this year as well.  I think that coincides with where they are based on revenue.  MLB teams don't release revenue figures but, off the top of my head, the Dodgers, Braves, Yankees, Mets, all likely have higher revenues then the Red Sox. 

Although revenue figures and where the Red Sox stand in comparison with other teams doesn't answer the question about the luxury tax that the Red Sox were trying to get under to reset the penalties. 

[vblfc]

Why would FSG fight for FFP when they have profited massively from it being circumvented?

They received £50m from Chelsea for Torres, £49m from City for Sterling and then the £142m for Coutinho was basically a chunk of what PSG paid Barca for Neymar.

I agree that the perceived losers from FFP have profited and are often indirect winners and now very quiet on he subject. However FFP and “within our means” were often quoted as constraints.  Without FFP, our spend can increase quite a bit sustainably and still allow growth of overall value for the owners.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Just have 100-150m net-spend each transfer window. It's well within our means and with the structure we have, we would go huge with it.

You just can't prescribe a level of net spend. Do you judge it purely on whether we have spent that amount, or on the quality of what's been bought?

Lets just say that in one window, you sell a Coutinho for 142m and bring in an Allison for 65m and a van Dijk for 75m. Has that window failed using your criteria? Or do we buy another 100m player even though we may not need him?

Similarly, we cull a few peripheral players and sell some youngsters, do we again go for the headline net figure?

Does the manager have a say in this? I can just imagine Klopp tearing his hair out. Noooo, not another player. What about the wage bill from our stockpile of players?

What happens if we get a the player we need for far less than our budget?

I can't believe I'm actually answering your point, because the idea of a targeted amount is so ridiculous.

I know, how about we aim for a situation whereby gaps in the squad are filled when we need them filling and we have a player budget that takes account all all of the costs in owning players?

[Sharado]

Snip

Seeing it all laid out like that is pretty mad.

I think the frustrating thing I feel is that it wouldn't have taken that much more to have found ourselves in a far better position. I'm not even talking huge amounts more here, I currently think we feel 2 players short in midfield. A bit of reshuffling of how we did transfers and this transition would be a lot smoother.

In terms of FSG I guess what I don't understand is if they care whether we're good or not - are they just making their money anyway now regardless. It seems they don't really care because of the glaring oversights like the CB in winter 2021 and the midfield this summer ending in shoddy loan deals for players that can barely get in the team.

You'd think a better team meant more ROI for them - when we're winning there's more expenditure from fans etc. But they don't act like that.

[El Lobo]

Combined for summer and winter. Don't think 100m is unreasonable for #4 ranked club based on valuations.

There’s literally one club in the league who have sustained a £100 million net spend per season, and it’s Abu Dhabi.

[Eeyore]

I read that point when you made it previously and don't object to it. But it's not "They received £50m/£49m/£142m", which is subtly but significantly different, muddying the waters between FSG giving/taking cash and the club spending what it earns.

The thing is we have a sell-to-buy policy. The majority of our transfer kitty comes from player sales. You look at our record incoming tranfer fees received and under FSG it has always dwarfed our record fee paid. Currently, it is £142m received and up to £85m spent. Given transfer inflation, our record fee received is around double what we have ever paid.

The success has been built on spending other people's money wisely backed up by the genius of Klopp. So the huge sums received either directly or indirectly from the oil clubs has been fundamental to our success. Since we stopped receiving money from the oil clubs directly or indirectly our spending has dried up.