but I’m sure you must get why a lot of people argue that shouldn’t be the case with a club of Liverpool’s stature right? I.E. buying to sell, and buying ‘low’ to develop and sell higher. You say it’s ‘quite right’, but others very much have the right to say the method isn’t quite right.
Whilst I agree people have the right to suggest our recruitment and financial model isn't the right model, the model needs to represented appropriately.
We don't buy to sell. We have done that previously but you can easily argue that's a function of the club not previously being able to retain players. Sterling, Suarez, Coutinho all left because they wanted to. Not because they were pushed out the door by the club against the manager's wishes to raise funds. We did re-invest the money and that's arguably were the big transfer fees we paid out came from. But we don't buy to sell per se. The proof of that is based in what has happened since Coutinho left.
Every World class player, or almost all, we have at the club have signed a new contract on much improved terms. If we were truly a buy to sell (and re-invest) club we'd have flipped a few of Salah, Mane, VvD etc. to re-invest. In the main, our model is to buy low (or get value in the market) for players we feel are undervalued and/or have the potential to have break out season relatively soon. You can argue that the undervalued players can also be stretched to positions and that we identified value in CBs and GKs over forwards when we bought VvD and Alisson.
The model is then to retain those players and reward them with contracts that are commensurate with their performances and achievements whilst at the club. This type of model has been hugely successful for us, as borne out by the trophies and consistency of performance over 3 seasons. It does come at a price though. If you buy 'low', with the aim of identifying undervalued players, developing them and then rewarding them, and you are successful then your wage bill increases significantly. That's what's happened with us. Increased prize money, TV money and increased commercial activity has in part funded the new contracts and increase in wages (along with infrastructure improvements, agent fees for contract renewals etc..).
Again I don't have issue with people having Q's or issues with the current model but people need to be realistic and clear about what the model is and what they are asking for. I also get that January and potentially this summer may be viewed as unique situations. In these instances we may want the owners to step in and add additional funds. I've said before that without hindsight, the summer looks like more of a desperate situation than we had in December or early January. It's also an environment where additional money could be more easily utilised and value could still be sort in the market.
That's not exactly what a lot of people are asking for though. People aren't asking for FSG to only step in during unique situations. Some people want us to rip up our current model and spend more money every transfer window. Again that's their prerogative but the money needs to come from somewhere. Personally, I think the current model has served us really well and allowed the club to grow both on and off the pitch without increasing debt. The likelihood of no CL football this summer and the financial implications of no CL football on the back of a season behind closed doors and lost gate receipts, on the back of a previous season where significant TV rebates need to be addressed, represents a unique situation to me. This is type of situation whereI'd like to see FSG invest funds to keep us moving forward. Summer 2019 for example doesn't feel like a break glass emergency to me to change our financial and recruitment models given the previous success.
