Ahem to change subject, why do people instantly shout asset stripping? Surely if someone is going to asset strip after having done this there will be nothing left to sell and hte value of the goods decreases?
If what people mean when they say asset stripping (this expression enables people to sum up something they don't understand or can't be bothered to understand because it ''makes my brain hurt'' .)
is pimping a club and sucking as much money out as possible before flogging it, then FSG are no good at asset stripping.
You would haev to be in it for at least 5 years or at least at the end of contracts. And the amount of risk involved, in taking over a club when you already own one club means that you have to be a pretty good asset stripper to do it in 2 - 3 years.
It would make more sense to have sold Redsox last year (maybe they missed the boat?) when redsox were approaching peak value
Can't remember now when the shirt contract expires, but I dont think it's enough to justify buying a club in a different country ripping them off and then doing a runner?
Then you have to add in the factor of player purchases, ok looking at present squad numbers this might point to mis management to say the least. But, if FSG came in with the intent to steal as much as possible from liverpool they wouldnt have signed carrol they would have taken sturridge as a young up and coming player. They wouldnt have allowed the signing of allen they would have said make do with spearing and the youth set up.
Thats what I would do if i were to rip off a club.
I think nesv are not the best owners we could have had, i didnt want american owners. Parry described the offer as bottom of the barrell stuff. But I dont think the long term aim of fsg is to rape and pillage like vikings, i just don't think they are good owners.
