Topic: The Men in Suits behind the scenes

[MonsLibpool]

Good luck granting a player on £200k+ a week a free transfer on the back of hip surgery. He’d never have passed a medical anywhere as evidenced by how his season went, contractually we owe it to the player to pay him and provide his rehab.

I think selling players is a really difficult thing to get right and there’s no real magic solution. If you start wielding the axe every summer, it could disrupt dressing room harmony and result in players wanting to leave if they feel like they lack security in their future. At the same time, you then end up with a scenario where players who probably should have been sold end up getting new contracts and outstaying their welcome (Lovren, Origi, Ox, Henderson). The only large club that seem to do a pretty good job at managing this are City and I’m hard pushed to offer them any type of credit given the murkiness in which they operate. They’re the only club that seem able to sell any player they like every summer and always find a willing buyer.

For a manager like Jurgen it can be difficult to take the emotion out of it given he’s so big on emotional buy in. Maybe with the new structure in place we’ll see less decisions biting us in the arse at the tail end of their contracts. For me it always felt like Jurgen always had the 7 year thing in his mind and didn’t really want to be around for the full rebuild, which is completely fair, which is why I felt he was reluctant to let players leave and missed the boat. He’d always say 27-32 is the peak age for a footballer, he came here with the idea we’d be signing 21-25 year olds, 7 years with them was pretty much managing their peaks then leaving.

Selling/moving players on is part and parcel of the game I'm afraid.  Rafa was very ruthless in that respect.

Every single club has to do it. Keeping players for the dressing room reminds me of the "Let's keep a declining Hendo on huge wages for his leadership" shouts last year.

That's football.

[Garlic Red]

Selling/moving players on is part and parcel of the game I'm afraid.  Rafa was very ruthless in that respect.

Yeah, he was, he was only half the manager Klopp is, though, so I wouldn’t be using him as a great example to follow. He was a ruthless manager but he was actually bordering on stupid in the transfer window at times.

[MonsLibpool]

Yeah, he was, he was only half the manager Klopp is, though, so I wouldn’t be using him as a great example to follow.

Bob Paisley? Or was he half the manager Jurgen is too?

[Fromola]

Good luck granting a player on £200k+ a week a free transfer on the back of hip surgery. He’d never have passed a medical anywhere as evidenced by how his season went, contractually we owe it to the player to pay him and provide his rehab.

I think selling players is a really difficult thing to get right and there’s no real magic solution. If you start wielding the axe every summer, it could disrupt dressing room harmony and result in players wanting to leave if they feel like they lack security in their future. At the same time, you then end up with a scenario where players who probably should have been sold end up getting new contracts and outstaying their welcome (Lovren, Origi, Ox, Henderson). The only large club that seem to do a pretty good job at managing this are City and I’m hard pushed to offer them any type of credit given the murkiness in which they operate. They’re the only club that seem able to sell any player they like every summer and always find a willing buyer.

For a manager like Jurgen it can be difficult to take the emotion out of it given he’s so big on emotional buy in. Maybe with the new structure in place we’ll see less decisions biting us in the arse at the tail end of their contracts. For me it always felt like Jurgen always had the 7 year thing in his mind and didn’t really want to be around for the full rebuild, which is completely fair, which is why I felt he was reluctant to let players leave and missed the boat. He’d always say 27-32 is the peak age for a footballer, he came here with the idea we’d be signing 21-25 year olds, 7 years with them was pretty much managing their peaks then leaving.

Real Madrid have struck the right balance more in recent years. They let Casemiro and Varane go at the right time, at the right price, which were controversial decisions as they were first XI players. They let Ronaldo go at the right time which was controversial as he was their all time leading goalscorer. They let Ramos go. At the same time they've kept Modric and Kroos so are prepared to keep some players well into their mid-late 30s. But the point is you can't keep everyone. They then reinvest in top class first team ready younger players. Barcelona on the other hand made a complete pigs ear of it. Guardiola's team pretty much all left for nothing at the end of their deals and stayed too long past their best.

Fabinho would be an example of us doing this but we got lucky with Saudi and he made the decision for us, same with Henderson. I also think Mane left at the right time, but again it was him pushing to leave. Wijnaldum ideally you let get with a year left and then spend the money on a younger replacement, instead of signing a player of the same age on more money, less durable and then lose Wijnaldum for nothing a year later and then don't replace him.

[Garlic Red]

Bob Paisley? Or was he half the manager Jurgen is too?

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here?

Selling is obviously necessary. I’m just saying it’s more difficult for a manager who signs players based on the total project and demands emotional buy in to get the extra % from players. What’s his greatest strength can sometimes lead to a downfall in other areas, for Klopp the downfall was an inability to be ruthless and let players grow old on somebody else’s watch. I can fully understand why this was difficult given how he manages. Using a manager like Benitez saying “well he was ruthless” kind of proves my point, he was ruthless and never got the extra % from his teams to win the league over here.

[MonsLibpool]

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here?

Selling is obviously necessary. I’m just saying it’s more difficult for a manager who signs players based on the total project and demands emotional buy in to get the extra % from players. What’s his greatest strength can sometimes lead to a downfall in other areas, for Klopp the downfall was an inability to be ruthless and let players grow old on somebody else’s watch. I can fully understand why this was difficult given how he manages. Using a manager like Benitez saying “well he was ruthless” kind of proves my point, he was ruthless and never got the extra % from his teams to win the league over here.

"Yeah, he was, he was only half the manager Klopp is, though, so I wouldn’t be using him as a great example to follow"

Let's agree to disagree mate. The argument has been derailed.

[Fromola]

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here?

Selling is obviously necessary. I’m just saying it’s more difficult for a manager who signs players based on the total project and demands emotional buy in to get the extra % from players. What’s his greatest strength can sometimes lead to a downfall in other areas, for Klopp the downfall was an inability to be ruthless and let players grow old on somebody else’s watch. I can fully understand why this was difficult given how he manages. Using a manager like Benitez saying “well he was ruthless” kind of proves my point, he was ruthless and never got the extra % from his teams to win the league over here.

Didn't Shanks keep his first great team around too long and then eventually started building another one after a few relatively barren years?

Paisley was more ruthless and 'let their legs go on someone else's pitch'. Ferguson was similar minded but then himself started keeping the likes of Giggs, Scholes and Neville around when their legs had gone and at the expense of bringing in fresh legs. Although towards the end he had less to spend on transfers and that's another consideration for Klopp as we're often so reluctant to spend money on players.

Klopp could have said to Gini that he wants to keep him but it's down to the club regarding contracts, but then he might have really gone to bat over Henderson's contract.  So often we've just let players run their deals down but Saudi got us out of two really bad contracts with Henderson and Fabinho for two players who were done at the top level.

I loved Rafa's ruthlessness for the most part but he often had a cold relationship with his players which could backfire (i.e. Alonso). He knew for example Carragher's time was up, but the club wouldn't back him.

Guardiola is also prepared to be ruthless - Sterling, Jesus, Cancelo, letting Gundogan go last year. Aguero, Yaya Toure and his birthday cake. When he took over he gutted the squad quite a bit.

[Garlic Red]

Real Madrid have struck the right balance more in recent years. They let Casemiro and Varane go at the right time, at the right price, which were controversial decisions as they were first XI players. They let Ronaldo go at the right time which was controversial as he was their all time leading goalscorer. They let Ramos go. At the same time they've kept Modric and Kroos so are prepared to keep some players well into their mid-late 30s. But the point is you can't keep everyone. They then reinvest in top class first team ready younger players. Barcelona on the other hand made a complete pigs ear of it. Guardiola's team pretty much all left for nothing at the end of their deals and stayed too long past their best.

Fabinho would be an example of us doing this but we got lucky with Saudi and he made the decision for us, same with Henderson. I also think Mane left at the right time, but again it was him pushing to leave. Wijnaldum ideally you let get with a year left and then spend the money on a younger replacement, instead of signing a player of the same age on more money, less durable and then lose Wijnaldum for nothing a year later and then don't replace him.

Real Madrid are probably the gold standard for how to operate the transfer market, it’s a very difficult model to replicate, though. They’re pretty much the ultimate destination club for any player in the world, this means if they come in for a player they generally get him, which means they very rarely bank on signing the 4th/5th options available and hope they perform at an elite level. How different would this conversation be if Klopp were able to land Bellingham, Tchouameni, Camaving, Rodrygo, Vinicius etc? We’d have liked them all, but they all go to Real Madrid, which makes succession planning that bit easier for them.

You could also argue that with La Liga being a less intense league, the need for constant change isn’t needed as much. They get the best part of a decade out of most of their signings with little to no decline at any point. For us it feels like anything over 5 years is a bonus.

[Sinyoro]

Yeah, he was, he was only half the manager Klopp is, though, so I wouldn’t be using him as a great example to follow. He was a ruthless manager but he was actually bordering on stupid in the transfer window at times.

please explain the basis for this observation.

[Garlic Red]

please explain the basis for this observation.

What needs explaining? I’ve lived through both periods and there’s zero doubting who the better manager is.

Rafa was a fantastic tactician, his work rate was almost unparalleled and that meticulous preparation shone in his sides. His man management abilities were well renowned as being non-existent. It made us a fantastic cup side but one title challenge in six seasons speaks for itself. Rafa might have been ruthless wielding the axe every summer, I’d argue it was also one of his greatest downfalls, the constant change and punts on average players meant we wasted an awful lot of money on bang average players whilst our rivals went quality over quantity. He also nearly sold his best signing and tried replacing him with Gareth Barry.

[No666]

Please don't derail the thread - there's quite a lot of movement going on behind the scenes atm and it would be a shame to lose the thread to a spurious comparison of managers from different eras.

[TeddyMc]

Sure looks like they are putting in a structure where a manager/coach will never get the power again like Klopp got after winning the title a structure where the manager/coach is just a disposable asset.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing I don't know.

Bayern, Madrid, Chelsea are a few of the clubs that have shown over the years that a manager/coach can change and the club just keeps on rolling and winning.

[rocco]

The structure will go back to pre 2022 when these people were in their elemet and working WITH Klopp. Slot will not have the same power. 

Imo the more successful Slot is the more powerful he will become

[Phineus]

Imo the more successful Slot is the more powerful he will become

Can’t see that happening again. Edwards is FSG’s main man now I reckon, the managers will be of his picking.

[Fromola]

Sure looks like they are putting in a structure where a manager/coach will never get the power again like Klopp got after winning the title a structure where the manager/coach is just a disposable asset.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing I don't know.

Bayern, Madrid, Chelsea are a few of the clubs that have shown over the years that a manager/coach can change and the club just keeps on rolling and winning.

Helps that they invest every year and don't just rest on their laurels when they have a successful season.

Ultimately has it been a bigger issue that Klopp had a lot of control, or that we haven't invested anywhere near in line with our main competitors? Arsenal haven't just come from nowhere under Arteta, they've spent a fortune. We can't just bank on a Coutinho-level sale every year to actually go big in the market.

[Samie]

Imo the more successful Slot is the more powerful he will become

Can’t see that happening again. Edwards is FSG’s main man now I reckon, the managers will be of his picking.

I agree with Rocco but up to a point. After Klopp won us the Champions League and then our holy grail after a 30 year wait he was untouchable. 

If Slot wins us #7 or another league title he will become a legend at the club but his influence will not grow because of the structure we have now.

[Dim Glas]

Imo the more successful Slot is the more powerful he will become

only if he doesn’t like the way that things are working and doesn’t feel it’s giving him the best base to carry on being successful.

I very much doubt Jürgen wanted as much power - he certainly never craved it before.  But because he was such a figurehead the club certainly took advantage of it and likely sided with him if things where not being done as he wanted. He may have stuck around longer if he didn’t have to do as much as he did mind. Had he ‘just’ been the trainer, he’d likely not be so burnt out. 

[rocco]

I agree with Rocco but up to a point. After Klopp won us the Champions League and then our holy grail after a 30 year wait he was untouchable. 

If Slot wins us #7 or another league title he will become a legend at the club but his influence will not grow because of the structure we have now.

Personally think even with the new structure, if slot as successful as Klopp and as loved … the structure will be more flexible
It’s when a manager not been successful it will be unbending.

[rocco]

only if he doesn’t like the way that things are working and doesn’t feel it’s giving him the best base to carry on being successful.

Exactly… no need to rock the boat if it’s going to plan but he will like the option if needed .

[Eeyore]

I know people complain about them not pumping money in but instead of giving us a fish, they've taught us how to fish by boosting our income and we're now level with United now.

It's up to us to either manage the resources well or waste it on bloated wages while talking about the owners being mingebags.

Ironically,  every other club now has to comply with this "spend what you earn policy". With the spending cap coming in, clubs now have to bypass the middle man to make the best use of more limited funds and that's what they're trying to do. We now aim to get Sadio Mane from Austria instead of from Soton.

These deals will obviously be cheaper and the players will be on low wages as they're not yet proven so it doesn't really have an impact on the deals we make for players to come into the team now.

There are a couple of things.

Firstly FSG may have taught us to fish but when there were no fish during COVID they allowed us to starve.

Secondly there was absolutely nothing stopping us from signing Sadio Mane from Salzburg the way Southampton did. The issue though is that we would have been signing him for £10m but we would have been taking a gamble that he could adapt to English Football.

If we bring in a player from a feeder club that bedding in period will be done at Liverpool and that will likely result in a dip whilst the player adapts to English football. So the lower fee has disadvantages as well as advantages.

[Eeyore]

Personally think even with the new structure, if slot as successful as Klopp and as loved … the structure will be more flexible
It’s when a manager not been successful it will be unbending.

We are talking about a completely different structure now though. Edwards isn't employed by Liverpool now he is a FSG employee. His job is to make money for FSG. So the biggest issue for me is when Feeder FC has a starlet that needs to make the step up to Liverpool. As FSG's CEO of football does Edwards push for players to be moved on to make room for that starlet?

[Garlic Red]

We are talking about a completely different structure now though. Edwards isn't employed by Liverpool now he is a FSG employee. His job is to make money for FSG. So the biggest issue for me is when Feeder FC has a starlet that needs to make the step up to Liverpool. As FSG's CEO of football does Edwards push for players to be moved on to make room for that starlet?

I enjoy reading your posts but this is such a bizarre hypothetical situation to consider your biggest issue. What would be so different to the current situation with the academy? Have FSG forced any academy players onto the manager or forced any player sales to accommodate starlets from the academy?

[Bobinhood]

Yeah, he was, he was only half the manager Klopp is, though, so I wouldn’t be using him as a great example to follow. He was a ruthless manager but he was actually bordering on stupid in the transfer window at times.

Terrible take. Rafa wheeled and dealed on a shoestring to great effect. He saved our ass by turning nothing into something oon a number of occasions. The cancers were not buying him 75m defenders you may recall.

[Bobinhood]

We are talking about a completely different structure now though. Edwards isn't employed by Liverpool now he is a FSG employee. His job is to make money for FSG. So the biggest issue for me is when Feeder FC has a starlet that needs to make the step up to Liverpool. As FSG's CEO of football does Edwards push for players to be moved on to make room for that starlet?

Liverpool is going to be right at the tip of the spear of the Globalpool Football Enterprise and all the players can just get in line.

[Eeyore]

I enjoy reading your posts but this is such a bizarre hypothetical situation to consider your biggest issue. What would be so different to the current situation with the academy? Have FSG forced any academy players onto the manager or forced any player sales to accommodate starlets from the academy?

The major difference is that currently, we have a manager who has the final say on recruitment and the ownership group only has one club. The objective is to make LFC as good as possible.

We are in the process of changing the structure and have appointed Edwards to oversee the model. Edwards is the Football CEO and Hughes will be LFC's Sporting Director with Ward almost certainly being in charge of the next club we buy.

Edwards job is to make the multi-club model work as well as possible. That means inevitably decisions will be made that aren't 100% for the benefit of LFC. The best comparison for me would be Salzburg and Leipzig. The objective isn't to make decisions that benefit either club 100%. The objective is what is best for the group.

Edwards job will be to increase the value of the portfolio of clubs. When you look at Liverpool we are at the stage in which there isn't that much headroom for increasing the value of the club. The Stadium is pretty much maxed out. TV rights are beginning to stagnate and without a sustained period of success it is difficult to see us increasing commercial revenues.

FSG bought the Red Sox maxed out the revenues and then moved on to Liverpool. Then they bought the Penguins and are looking at an NBA franchise and purchasing further soccer clubs. Unlike in Pittsburgh or Boston there isn't really an option to invest in the infrastructure around the stadiums.

There are two ways to make money at Liverpool. The high-risk option of looking to compete with the elite clubs in terms of transfers and wage bills. Or there is the other option which is to keep Liverpool semi-competitive whilst using the multi-club model to have a younger lower wage bill squad that would result in sustained profits. Revenues are likely to flat line at around £500-600m so if you can reduce the wage bill and make money from player trading then the Champions League no longer dictates whether the club makes a profit or a loss.

If you look at the Red Sox that is for me what they have decided to do. The Red Sox have gone from one of the big two of Baseball in terms of payroll to 11th. This season their payroll is just over half of what the biggest spenders are spending. The way FSG look at it is would spending another $100m in payroll generate an extra $100m in revenues.

[Eeyore]

Liverpool is going to be right at the tip of the spear of the Globalpool Football Enterprise and all the players can just get in line.

You may well be right. FSG are going to spend tens or possibly hundreds of millions buying and investing in Football clubs just to improve Liverpool.

There is also the possibility that they intend to create a portfolio of clubs and look the increase the value of that portfolio.

[TepidT2O]

You may well be right. FSG are going to spend tens or possibly hundreds of millions buying and investing in Football clubs just to improve Liverpool.

There is also the possibility that they intend to create a portfolio of clubs and look the increase the value of that portfolio.

Or both.

Would make sense to have a club that would  act as RB slazburg rather than signing player that have been at rbsalzburg and cut out the middle man (or woman)

[Bobinhood]

You may well be right. FSG are going to spend tens or possibly hundreds of millions buying and investing in Football clubs just to improve Liverpool.

There is also the possibility that they intend to create a portfolio of clubs and look the increase the value of that portfolio.

Well, both. Its called vertical integration. Ideally we constantly produce absolute top level starters for lfc and very expensive but fatally flawed meh level starters for chelsea spurs and the mancs.

[Garlic Red]

The major difference is that currently, we have a manager who has the final say on recruitment and the ownership group only has one club. The objective is to make LFC as good as possible.

We are in the process of changing the structure and have appointed Edwards to oversee the model. Edwards is the Football CEO and Hughes will be LFC's Sporting Director with Ward almost certainly being in charge of the next club we buy.

Edwards job is to make the multi-club model work as well as possible. That means inevitably decisions will be made that aren't 100% for the benefit of LFC. The best comparison for me would be Salzburg and Leipzig. The objective isn't to make decisions that benefit either club 100%. The objective is what is best for the group.

Edwards job will be to increase the value of the portfolio of clubs. When you look at Liverpool we are at the stage in which there isn't that much headroom for increasing the value of the club. The Stadium is pretty much maxed out. TV rights are beginning to stagnate and without a sustained period of success it is difficult to see us increasing commercial revenues.

FSG bought the Red Sox maxed out the revenues and then moved on to Liverpool. Then they bought the Penguins and are looking at an NBA franchise and purchasing further soccer clubs. Unlike in Pittsburgh or Boston there isn't really an option to invest in the infrastructure around the stadiums.

There are two ways to make money at Liverpool. The high-risk option of looking to compete with the elite clubs in terms of transfers and wage bills. Or there is the other option which is to keep Liverpool semi-competitive whilst using the multi-club model to have a younger lower wage bill squad that would result in sustained profits. Revenues are likely to flat line at around £500-600m so if you can reduce the wage bill and make money from player trading then the Champions League no longer dictates whether the club makes a profit or a loss.

If you look at the Red Sox that is for me what they have decided to do. The Red Sox have gone from one of the big two of Baseball in terms of payroll to 11th. This season their payroll is just over half of what the biggest spenders are spending. The way FSG look at it is would spending another $100m in payroll generate an extra $100m in revenues.

The Salzburg and Leipzig comparison doesn’t really stand true though, does it? Leipzig aren’t a big club, they aren’t a European giant with an expectation to compete at the top, they aren’t signing large sponsorships year in, year out based on being one of the biggest clubs in the biggest league in the world, are they?

They’re also pretty transparent with their place within the European football pyramid, a bit like Brighton over here, they aren’t a destination club, they’re open with players that they give them a platform to demonstrate their best ability, will always be willing sellers if bigger clubs come calling and usually include fair release clauses to reflect that.

Edwards’ job will be to make the multi club model work, but the multi club model will only be deemed to be working if Liverpool are benefitting the most from it.

For me the multi club model will be about plugging the gap from the market where players are undervalued (u18 year olds or players from much weaker leagues) and getting them ready to play for a club like us. It’s practically impossible for us to compete and do the job of blooding youngsters. The loan system has been effective but has its limitations in its current form, I’m pretty sure it’s changing to a maximum of six players loaned out next season, isn’t it?

FSG will be aware that despite us being pretty good in the market, we’re still probably remarkably inefficient compared to a lot of clubs. We pay big fees for players we’ve been aware of for years because we’re paying for them to be ready to play at the very highest level. It makes no sense to continue to do this when you can buy another club and develop them yourself, simultaneously growing the value of your entire portfolio, benefitting your biggest asset and potentially reducing one of your biggest annual outlays.

I find it almost impossible to believe they would force an unproven starlet onto a manager and start selling proven assets at the same time. We’ve seen how we develop players, any player deemed good enough for Liverpool coming from one of the other clubs within the group will be afforded time to settle and develop as any other player would. If the player is unable to break into the first team or prove they’re good enough, we’ll do what we’ve done with other players and find them a loan/transfer.

[Samie]

I really want to know how Al's mind works but i'm scared.

[Eeyore]

The Salzburg and Leipzig comparison doesn’t really stand true though, does it? Leipzig aren’t a big club, they aren’t a European giant with an expectation to compete at the top, they aren’t signing large sponsorships year in, year out based on being one of the biggest clubs in the biggest league in the world, are they?

They’re also pretty transparent with their place within the European football pyramid, a bit like Brighton over here, they aren’t a destination club, they’re open with players that they give them a platform to demonstrate their best ability, will always be willing sellers if bigger clubs come calling and usually include fair release clauses to reflect that.

The Red Sox are a giant in baseball. They are a destination club. That doesn't mean they have to be successful to turn a profit. So why would Liverpool be any different? As a Liverpool fan our best seasons are when we win trophies. If you are an investment group then surely your most successful seasons are your most profitable ones. 

Edwards’ job will be to make the multi club model work, but the multi club model will only be deemed to be working if Liverpool are benefitting the most from it.

For FSG the multi-club model will be deemed to be working if the portfolio is turning a profit and the portfolio is increasing in value. Do you honestly think FSG would be happy if Liverpool won the League but the Portfolio lost a couple of hundred million?

For me the multi club model will be about plugging the gap from the market where players are undervalued (u18 year olds or players from much weaker leagues) and getting them ready to play for a club like us. It’s practically impossible for us to compete and do the job of blooding youngsters. The loan system has been effective but has its limitations in its current form, I’m pretty sure it’s changing to a maximum of six players loaned out next season, isn’t it?

FSG will be aware that despite us being pretty good in the market, we’re still probably remarkably inefficient compared to a lot of clubs. We pay big fees for players we’ve been aware of for years because we’re paying for them to be ready to play at the very highest level. It makes no sense to continue to do this when you can buy another club and develop them yourself, simultaneously growing the value of your entire portfolio, benefitting your biggest asset and potentially reducing one of your biggest annual outlays.

I find it almost impossible to believe they would force an unproven starlet onto a manager and start selling proven assets at the same time. We’ve seen how we develop players, any player deemed good enough for Liverpool coming from one of the other clubs within the group will be afforded time to settle and develop as any other player would. If the player is unable to break into the first team or prove they’re good enough, we’ll do what we’ve done with other players and find them a loan/transfer.

The intention could be to benefit Liverpool and this could all be about allowing us to compete. However, it could also be that FSG have a proven track record of buying sports clubs and maximising their revenues. They could see other soccer teams as a way of making money. It could be about economy of scale as much as about improving Liverpool.

FSG already have a recruitment team and scouting network. So why not use that to improve another club in their portfolio. Why not use our young players to dominate a weaker League the way Red Bull do in Austria. Red Bull has seen the value of their portfolio increase tenfold.

[Redbonnie]

There are a couple of things.

Firstly FSG may have taught us to fish but when there were no fish during COVID they allowed us to starve.

Secondly there was absolutely nothing stopping us from signing Sadio Mane from Salzburg the way Southampton did. The issue though is that we would have been signing him for £10m but we would have been taking a gamble that he could adapt to English Football.

If we bring in a player from a feeder club that bedding in period will be done at Liverpool and that will likely result in a dip whilst the player adapts to English football. So the lower fee has disadvantages as well as advantages.

Would we test him in a loan to a prem club first?

[Bennett]

Would we test him in a loan to a prem club first?

Problem is, Premier League owners are generally getting very savvy and data-driven themselves. What is the advantage to them helping Liverpool bed in a player with huge question marks over them when they can pick out another player for a nominal fee and potentially earn tens of millions for them 12-24 months down the road?

[Samie]

Would we test him in a loan to a prem club first?

FSG are buying a second club so they keep it in-house.  It will be a club in Portugal or Belgium probably.

[Garlic Red]

The Red Sox are a giant in baseball. They are a destination club. That doesn't mean they have to be successful to turn a profit. So why would Liverpool be any different? As a Liverpool fan our best seasons are when we win trophies. If you are an investment group then surely your most successful seasons are your most profitable ones. 



The intention could be to benefit Liverpool and this could all be about allowing us to compete. However, it could also be that FSG have a proven track record of buying sports clubs and maximising their revenues. They could see other soccer teams as a way of making money. It could be about economy of scale as much as about improving Liverpool.

FSG already have a recruitment team and scouting network. So why not use that to improve another club in their portfolio. Why not use our young players to dominate a weaker League the way Red Bull do in Austria. Red Bull has seen the value of their portfolio increase tenfold.

What is happening at the Red Sox is completely irrelevant to what happens here. Same owners yes but that’s about as far as the debate goes. American sports are nothing like ours, I’ve followed them for years and you can’t just flip the switch to compete, rebuilds can take years and years to formulate. You can’t just fix things in a transfer window: free agency windows are ultra competitive, you’re competing against teams that play in states with no tax, can offer completely different lifestyles in places like LA, can offer greater off the field opportunities and so many other things. You need to draft and acquire talent, patiently develop it then try and turn the talent into either a competitive roster or valuable enough assets to land big ticket players that want to stay in your city. Teams across all American sports can spend years, sometimes multiple decades being shite, only to land a generational talent in a draft and the future completely changes.

There’s zero doubts they’ve been getting things wrong with the Red Sox, but they’ve sacked their CBO and brought back Epstein to revitalise the franchise. This has only just happened, though, and the fruits of that could take years to show.

So no offence, I won’t really debate what’s going on in the MLB or the NHL as they have no relevance to how we need to be run or how they might run us as there is simply no relevance.

For FSG the multi-club model will be deemed to be working if the portfolio is turning a profit and the portfolio is increasing in value. Do you honestly think FSG would be happy if Liverpool won the League but the Portfolio lost a couple of hundred million?

FSG won’t run any business in a way that loses hundreds of millions, so it’s a silly hypothetical. FSG will want their model to be self-sufficient, they’ll invest and empower the best in class people to ensure this is being delivered and will continue to be innovative to gain advantages. However, if the other clubs can successfully produce players for Liverpool, I imagine that will be one of the biggest positives to come from MCO, as it will save us huge sums on players, wages and probably agent fees etc and even if it doesn’t lead to tons of players joining us, successfully developing players to sell to other teams for a profit will probably trump any profits made from running a small club in a small league profitably.

[MonsLibpool]

Would we test him in a loan to a prem club first?

We don't.

Only players that are good enough will make it here. It's easy to think about extremes but it's basically this:
1. Get a player who isn't quite ready for us but has good potential.
2. Loan him out to a second team that plays a similar style to us for a year or two.
3. Not good enough for us but decent level? Sell.
4. Good enough for us (according to the stats guuys and things like performances in European competitions)? Keep as a squad player and introduce into the team slowly.

The manager will obviously assess them every preseasosn and we'll still be conducting our normal first team business.

This is from solely from a LFC POV because one argument is that it's selfish but the benefits for the other clubs have been discussed in detail in the appropriate thread.

Our style of play matters a lot as it makes the collective greater than the sum of its parts. If it can be implemented in the other clubs then it makes the transition easier for the players and the clubs' results will improve due to having better players and an established style of play.

This example is not all-encompassing above as the clubs can leverage in our database to find hidden gems.

Example of players?
Mac Allister straight from Argentina for £7m
Caicedo from Ecuador for £4m
Mitoma for £3m from Japan (LOL)
Some of these fees are incentive based as well which is why Chelsea seems to buy youngsters for "£20m" every month.

These fees are insignificant to us and they'll be on low wages anyway so an insignificant impact on our main transfer dealings. The club we FSG buy has to be at a decent level.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Problem is, Premier League owners are generally getting very savvy and data-driven themselves. What is the advantage to them helping Liverpool bed in a player with huge question marks over them when they can pick out another player for a nominal fee and potentially earn tens of millions for them 12-24 months down the road?

Man City currently have 3 players on loan to other Premier League clubs. Chelsea have two.

If we put up the likes of Carvalho, Bradley, Bajetic, Quansah for loan next season there would be plenty of domestic interest.

[newterp]

Imo the more successful Slot is the more powerful he will become

Is a he turning to the dark side?

[LiamG]

Or both.

Would make sense to have a club that would  act as RB slazburg rather than signing player that have been at rbsalzburg and cut out the middle man (or woman)

This, this is exactly what i imagine they want! The loan system is just not beneficial anymore so it makes sense to have a feeder club where they can sign players to develop in a lower league and then make the step up to us

If they end up getting a club in Portugal then this would open up huge possibilities with the South American market

[MonsLibpool]

This, this is exactly what i imagine they want! The loan system is just not beneficial anymore so it makes sense to have a feeder club where they can sign players to develop in a lower league and then make the step up to us

If they end up getting a club in Portugal then this would open up huge possibilities with the South American market

The other club will be limited by FFP/their revenues (the owners wont pump money in) and won't be able to go for the best talents initially so we'll still need to buy the more expensive ones (from the other club's perspective) ourselves.

Growing the other team makes it easier for them to sign players directly.