Topic: FSG (*)

[the 92A]

Apologies didn't see John's post above

[Ipcress]

Look at where Spurs were 19 years ago though under Levy they have gone from a lower mid table team, to a mid table team, to an upper mid table to a team that challenges year in year out for the CL places all with a much smaller budget than their peers.

As for a comparison with ourselves their average finishing position has been much better than ours since FSG arrived and with a much smaller income and a much smaller wage bill.

When FSG arrived, they had a mess of a club to sort out, a lot to learn, and Spurs were already finishing higher than them in the league. Despite that they have won the same number of trophies, been in more finals and are improving in the league at a rate that I believe will have us challenging for the league title, not just top four, all in a fraction of the time it took Spurs owners to achieve the same/less.

[Billy The Kid]

You've been one of my fav posters over the years mate, you know that    but it's not unknown that other stuff goes on behind the scenes on RAWK and Al is part of some important stuff

I'm not agreeing with his stance in this thread, just sayin

Apologies didn't see John's post above

Duly noted sirs. Duly noted. Happy to take both points on the chin

Myself and Al don't always see eye to eye, but I've commended his passion for the club on numerous occasions.

I certainly wouldn't question him or knock him on that front. It's obvious he's a good red at heart

Apologies if my post came across the wrong way. In hindsight, the wording and tone of it was off side

As you were 

[John C]

 

[Eeyore]

+1

[Eeyore]

When FSG arrived, they had a mess of a club to sort out, a lot to learn, and Spurs were already finishing higher than them in the league. Despite that they have won the same number of trophies, been in more finals and are improving in the league at a rate that I believe will have us challenging for the league title, not just top four, all in a fraction of the time it took Spurs owners to achieve the same/less.

The likelihood is that Spurs will finish above us this season.

If they do it will provide a statistical symmetry if you include the 10/11 season when FSG arrived in October then in the seven seasons pre FSG we finished above Spurs in six seasons out of seven.

Post FSG Spurs have finished above us in six seasons out of seven.

I am not looking to compare us with Spurs or saying we should look to emulate them but if we could over achieve in relation to our relative resources the way they have then we would be in a much better position.

[NaivetyinBlack]

Heh.

Let Spurs start their stadium works with 800Mn loan they are about to go under. We'll see the comparitive trajectories of both club's progress then.

[JackWard33]

Heh.

Let Spurs start their stadium works with 800Mn loan they are about to go under. We'll see the comparitive trajectories of both club's progress then.

Bit small time this isn't it? - thinking that building a bigger more modern stadium will somehow set them back. Admire their ambition personally - wish we had more of it. It sucks for us - would be nicer if a) they weren't so ambitious and b) they weren't so well run - we don't really need another long term competitor for the top slots but we've probably got one.

[NaivetyinBlack]

What exactly tells you that we would stop our progress while Spurs 'show' their ambition Jack ? Pointing out that they would be set back a lot, financially and consequentially, in the transfer market by the loan is not wishful thinking. Or have you forgotten how Arsenal are still struggling with achieving top status after their stadium loan was repaid ?

As for them being so well run, let them achieve something successful first. A higher league position is not success, unless you're thinking in Evertonian logic. They were just trounced in a cup final, were eliminated by a European minnow in Genk. They have a manager who shows promise, but cannot string wins away from home, a difficulty to be compounded next season.

So tell me, how they are better run and on a higher trajectory of progression than us please.

[CraigDS]

Bit small time this isn't it? - thinking that building a bigger more modern stadium will somehow set them back. Admire their ambition personally - wish we had more of it. It sucks for us - would be nicer if a) they weren't so ambitious and b) they weren't so well run - we don't really need another long term competitor for the top slots but we've probably got one.

How so?

An £800m loan needs repaying, and the additional £650m they are spending to get a stadium the same size and Anfield will not bring in anymore revenue bar the London ticket increase (which we can't benefit from no matter if we spend £50 or £5000m on a stadium).

Creating an over elaborate stadium is not really ambition. I mean it was to Hicks and Gillet, but it's not really.

[Eeyore]

Heh.

Let Spurs start their stadium works with 800Mn loan they are about to go under. We'll see the comparitive trajectories of both club's progress then.

May I suggest you google 'Tavistock Group' before you make crazy statements about Spurs going under.

[NaivetyinBlack]

May I suggest you google 'Tavistock Group' before you make crazy statements about Spurs going under.

I meant take the loan. Perhaps I should have worded better. Go under did not mean administration or financial default.

They'd be severely restricted.

[Eeyore]

How so?

An £800m loan needs repaying, and the additional £650m they are spending to get a stadium the same size and Anfield will not bring in anymore revenue bar the London ticket increase (which we can't benefit from no matter if we spend £50 or £5000m on a stadium).

Creating an over elaborate stadium is not really ambition. I mean it was to Hicks and Gillet, but it's not really.

Double standards there mate. You cannot ignore the relative costs of Stadiums and the cost of land in between Liverpool and London on one hand and then bring up the London ticket premium on the other.

You also conveniently ignored things like the fact that Spurs will have a 100% brand new ground whilst we will have a mish mash and the fact that Spurs will be better placed in regard to naming rights and exploiting the Corporate market.

[Eeyore]

I meant take the loan. Perhaps I should have worded better. Go under did not mean administration or financial default.

They'd be severely restricted.

That depends on the terms of the repayments and how much Capital investment the owners are making.

[TepidT2O]

Al involved in unpubliscised fights...

I'm imagining a bare knuckle fist fight with Fordy now....

[Eeyore]

Al involved in unpubliscised fights...

I'm imagining a bare knuckle fist fight with Fordy now....

You will have to take care of Charlie Adam first mate....

[TepidT2O]

You will have to take care of Charlie Adam first mate....

Fordy fisting Charlie, there's a sight for sore eyes.

[CraigDS]

Double standards there mate. You cannot ignore the relative costs of Stadiums and the cost of land in between Liverpool and London on one hand and then bring up the London ticket premium on the other.

I didn't ignore it, I specifically mentioned London prices. No matter if we spent £10 or £1bn on a stadium we could not benefit from them, so we cut our cloth accordingly. It does not mean we lack any more ambition in doing so.

You also conveniently ignored things like the fact that Spurs will have a 100% brand new ground whilst we will have a mish mash and the fact that Spurs will be better placed in regard to naming rights and exploiting the Corporate market.

So is a new seat worth any less?

Will us spending £800m allow us to benefit more from London placement for naming and corps?

[Eeyore]

I didn't ignore it, I specifically mentioned London prices. No matter if we spent £10 or £1bn on a stadium we could not benefit from them, so we cut our cloth accordingly. It does not mean we lack any more ambition in doing so.


So is a new seat worth any less?

Will us spending £800m allow us to benefit more from London placement for naming and corps?

I think you have missed the point mate buying land and building in London costs far more than it does in Liverpool. So Spurs would have to spend more to do what we are doing and we would be able to build their Stadium for less in Liverpool.

So for me it is a bit unfair to talk about London premiums for tickets and Corporate facilities without acknowledging that land and construction also comes with a premium in London.

[Eeyore]

Fordy fisting Charlie, there's a sight for sore eyes.

No wonder you have that username now mate. 

[Skrtelonparole]

Double standards there mate. You cannot ignore the relative costs of Stadiums and the cost of land in between Liverpool and London on one hand and then bring up the London ticket premium on the other.

You also conveniently ignored things like the fact that Spurs will have a 100% brand new ground whilst we will have a mish mash and the fact that Spurs will be better placed in regard to naming rights and exploiting the Corporate market.

Yeah, fair point on comparing apples to apples on return on investments.... Then again, Spurs are currently massively overachieving, so benchmarking FSG against spurs wage/success ratio over the last 6-7 years isn't really fair either, is it?

My 2p; Sure FSG has made mistakes as they have learned on the job - but i'd much rather have them than the previous owners, and on the balance i think they have done a quite decent job, as Groundskeeper Willie's list points out... Then again, lets see how we do on transfers this summer and how happy Kloppo is with their backing once checks actually need to be signed?

Unity is Strength

[Eeyore]

Yeah, fair point on comparing apples to apples on return on investments.... Then again, Spurs are currently massively overachieving, so benchmarking FSG against spurs wage/success ratio over the last 6-7 years isn't really fair either, is it?

My 2p; Sure FSG has made mistakes as they have learned on the job - but i'd much rather have them than the previous owners, and on the balance i think they have done a quite decent job, as Groundskeeper Willie's list points out... Then again, lets see how we do on transfers this summer and how happy Kloppo is with their backing once checks actually need to be signed?

Unity is Strength

On one hand I agree that it is perhaps unfair to compare us to Spurs who have overachieved but then again plenty of people have claimed we should never finish 4th because there are four richer teams than us.

As I have said before Hodgson was a decent manager and the Konch was a decent full back but that simply doesn't cut it at Liverpool's level so why accept owners doing a decent job.

It's elite sport you cannot carry people who aren't pulling their weight so let's hope FSG step up to the plate. If not then they should face the same kind of scrutiny that decent managers and decent players face. Nothing more nothing less.

[El Lobo]

Al, why the fuck would you go back to that nonsense when the threads moving in a nice direction debate wise?! Hodgson was our worst ever manager and Konchesky would likely get into our worst ever team. Having owners who do some good things and some not so good things isn't the same as having a manager who is the complete antithesis of what a Liverpool manager should be. Can you just abandon that line of enquiry forever please

[RK7]

Where has the figure of £800m come from? I thought the loan amount was in the region of £350m. They could have built a new stadium for far less but ARE showing ambition in there quest to maximise revenue.

[Eeyore]

Al, why the fuck would you go back to that nonsense when the threads moving in a nice direction debate wise?! Hodgson was our worst ever manager and Konchesky would likely get into our worst ever team. Having owners who do some good things and some not so good things isn't the same as having a manager who is the complete antithesis of what a Liverpool manager should be. Can you just abandon that line of enquiry forever please

Try googling Don Welsh mate.

[El Lobo]

Try googling Don Welsh mate.

Aye I know, just abandon it mate. It's Roy Hodgson. And Paul Konchesky. They're not suitable comparisons. FSG are much more Brendan Rodgers/Stig Inge Bjornebye

[SerbianScouser]

All our rivals are more ambitious than us. They are all expanding, they are all great, they are all led by super competent people. They never ever make mistakes, they are all more successful than us. Their shits smell great and they are all amazing.

We on the other hand are completely opposite to all of them.

We get it.

[Eeyore]

Aye I know, just abandon it mate. It's Roy Hodgson. And Paul Konchesky. They're not suitable comparisons. FSG are much more Brendan Rodgers/Stig Inge Bjornebye

Or we could aim for Bob Paisley/Phil Neal.

[El Lobo]

Or we could aim for Bob Paisley/Phil Neal.

Bob Paisleys and Phil Neals don't exist in football ownership.

[Skrtelonparole]

On one hand I agree that it is perhaps unfair to compare us to Spurs who have overachieved but then again plenty of people have claimed we should never finish 4th because there are four richer teams than us.

As I have said before Hodgson was a decent manager and the Konch was a decent full back but that simply doesn't cut it at Liverpool's level so why accept owners doing a decent job.

It's elite sport you cannot carry people who aren't pulling their weight so let's hope FSG step up to the plate. If not then they should face the same kind of scrutiny that decent managers and decent players face. Nothing more nothing less.

I can totally get on board with your line of thought.
Though for nuance - I cut the owners some slack for them actually learning on the job and in that process making their mistakes. Its still a small price to pay for the getting rid of the cancers. That slack only extends so far. Konchesky won't do for the coming years.
I'm hoping more along the lines of a... 20-year old Coutinho, having learned the ropes for a couple of years and just about ready to step up and win us the league... #believer

[free_at_last]

Double standards there mate. You cannot ignore the relative costs of Stadiums and the cost of land in between Liverpool and London on one hand and then bring up the London ticket premium on the other.

You also conveniently ignored things like the fact that Spurs will have a 100% brand new ground whilst we will have a mish mash and the fact that Spurs will be better placed in regard to naming rights and exploiting the Corporate market.

I don't know how you can call Anfield a mish mash - it looks pretty good to me. I would have thought 90% of fans preferred
to redevelop Anfield ....we got what we wanted and that was not some symmetrical new stadium.

[CraigDS]

I think you have missed the point mate buying land and building in London costs far more than it does in Liverpool. So Spurs would have to spend more to do what we are doing and we would be able to build their Stadium for less in Liverpool.

So for me it is a bit unfair to talk about London premiums for tickets and Corporate facilities without acknowledging that land and construction also comes with a premium in London.

Oh no doubt costs are higher, however not to the tune of what they've spent, and nor does that show anymore ambition (which was the point made).

[CraigDS]

Where has the figure of £800m come from? I thought the loan amount was in the region of £350m. They could have built a new stadium for far less but ARE showing ambition in there quest to maximise revenue.

Levy confirmed it had now risen to that much. Likely to rise again before completion imo.

[RK7]

Levy confirmed it had now risen to that much. Likely to rise again before completion imo.

The cost of the build will be closer to £800m, in part due to the introduction of sliding pitches and allowing it to become a duel use stadium. I've not heard or seen anything from Levy that claims they are looking to loan £800m though.

[CraigDS]

The cost of the build will be closer to £800m, in part due to the introduction of sliding pitches and allowing it to become a duel use stadium. I've not heard or seen anything from Levy that claims they are looking to loan £800m though.

That was always planned. The price is spiralling out of control by the looks of it.

They will fund some via a naming deal no doubt, but the rest will be debt unless you're suggesting the owner will cover the cost - something they've shown no intention of doing.

[LiamG]

When FSG arrived, they had a mess of a club to sort out, a lot to learn, and Spurs were already finishing higher than them in the league. Despite that they have won the same number of trophies, been in more finals and are improving in the league at a rate that I believe will have us challenging for the league title, not just top four, all in a fraction of the time it took Spurs owners to achieve the same/less.

Spurs haven't won a trophy in that time but we have

[RK7]

That was always planned. The price is spiralling out of control by the looks of it.

They will fund some via a naming deal no doubt, but the rest will be debt unless you're suggesting the owner will cover the cost - something they've shown no intention of doing.

The point is the loan will be nowhere near £800m which was suggested above, it will be closer to £350m.

[CraigDS]

The point is the loan will be nowhere near £800m which was suggested above, it will be closer to £350m.

Based on what? Where is the other £450m coming from?

[El Lobo]

Spurs haven't won a trophy in that time but we have

This is the point continually raised about Spurs in this thread, but it's never actually addressed.

[Frizzo]

The point is the loan will be nowhere near £800m which was suggested above, it will be closer to £350m.

Where the hell are they pulling half a billion dollars from?