|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
They removed a lot of the deadwood on very high wages and increased revenue through better sponsorship deals and merchandising.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297 |
They removed a lot of the deadwood on very high wages and increased revenue through better sponsorship deals and merchandising. They removed the deadwood, agreed but FAILED to replace them The sponsorship deals would have come without FSG.... So what good points do FSG have? Just because they bought an asset does not mean they deserve praise. The fact of the matter is they've had 30 months to show good intentions and they have failed at almost every opportunity..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
Would they really have come? What are you basing that on? The fact is that they have increased and it was under FSG.
They were removing that deadwood to reduce the wage bill. What is the point of removing them to only replace them again? They are bringing the average age of the squad down which is reducing the wage demands of players as they are not at their peak and demanding a final, large contract.
They invested or reinvested 150mil into transfer fees over their time here. They did put too much faith into the hands of Commolli and Kenny but the money was made available.
They have made several mistakes in their time here too
-Commolli, Kenny and 100mil
- haven't yet addressed the stadium issue but I am willing to be a bit more patient on that front until the summer
- the handling of the Dempsey affair
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297 |
Would they really have come? What are you basing that on? The fact is that they have increased and it was under FSG.
They were removing that deadwood to reduce the wage bill. What is the point of removing them to only replace them again? They are bringing the average age of the squad down which is reducing the wage demands of players as they are not at their peak and demanding a final, large contract.
They invested or reinvested 150mil into transfer fees over their time here. They did put too much faith into the hands of Commolli and Kenny but the money was made available.
They have made several mistakes in their time here too
-Commolli, Kenny and 100mil
- haven't yet addressed the stadium issue but I am willing to be a bit more patient on that front until the summer
- the handling of the Dempsey affair £150 million??? I dont see it mate... Where is it? KK and DC's signing came to £35 million NET... That money came directly from the £50 million loand Hicks and Gillet took out from RBS in 2007. There was £35 million left.. FSG did not undertake due diligence and wasted it. Another FAILURE The sponsorship deals would have come... Look at the Premier League as a whole, Sponsorship deals have been rising. Why would LFC not follow suit? They have saved £30 million this year alone just from wages. But not invested that back into playing staff.. I still can't see why people have such blind faith in FSG considering the above.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Hyypia clearly didn't have pace? What he did have was an excellent awareness of where the danger was coming which negated his lack of pace. this is what Coates needs to learn and he'll only develop it by getting games.
Try read the posts fully instead of jumping onto one point wrongly For me, a lot depends on the system we are playing. With BR's system of high possession upfield, to minimise the risk of being caught on the counter, I feel we need a very pacy backline, not sure if Coates can do the job, or if Hyppia would be as effective as he was in this system. Macherano has been playing Centre Back at Barca because in their game, pace is important when to have to run back, having lost possession deep upfront.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
Would they really have come? What are you basing that on? The fact is that they have increased and it was under FSG.
They were removing that deadwood to reduce the wage bill. What is the point of removing them to only replace them again? They are bringing the average age of the squad down which is reducing the wage demands of players as they are not at their peak and demanding a final, large contract.
They invested or reinvested 150mil into transfer fees over their time here. They did put too much faith into the hands of Commolli and Kenny but the money was made available.
They have made several mistakes in their time here too
-Commolli, Kenny and 100mil
- haven't yet addressed the stadium issue but I am willing to be a bit more patient on that front until the summer
- the handling of the Dempsey affair £150 million??? I dont see it mate... Where is it? KK and DC's signing came to £35 million NET... That money came directly from the £50 million loand Hicks and Gillet took out from RBS in 2007. There was £35 million left.. FSG did not undertake due diligence and wasted it. Another FAILURE The sponsorship deals would have come... Look at the Premier League as a whole, Sponsorship deals have been rising. Why would LFC not follow suit? They have saved £30 million this year alone just from wages. But not invested that back into playing staff.. I still can't see why people have such blind faith in FSG considering the above. We spent 150mil on players the last few years, total not net. I never mentioned net. The owners didn't have to release those funds if they didn't want to. FSG still had to go and get those improved sponsorship deals which they have done quite well. They have saved 30mil in wages which is in and around the amount of money we would have received had we been in the champions league. We can not afford to pay champions league wages until we get back to it. They also spent 32mil net this year so far on transfers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
Hyypia clearly didn't have pace? What he did have was an excellent awareness of where the danger was coming which negated his lack of pace. this is what Coates needs to learn and he'll only develop it by getting games.
Try read the posts fully instead of jumping onto one point wrongly For me, a lot depends on the system we are playing. With BR's system of high possession upfield, to minimise the risk of being caught on the counter, I feel we need a very pacy backline, not sure if Coates can do the job, or if Hyppia would be as effective as he was in this system. Macherano has been playing Centre Back at Barca because in their game, pace is important when to have to run back, having lost possession deep upfront. I think Coates could form a good partnership with someone pacey who can cover for him and let him compete in the air but will always be vulnerable to someone like Hernandez running in behind him. BR probably feels the same way as you regarding the pace issue and that could be why he is looking at CB's to probably replace Carra.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297 |
Would they really have come? What are you basing that on? The fact is that they have increased and it was under FSG.
They were removing that deadwood to reduce the wage bill. What is the point of removing them to only replace them again? They are bringing the average age of the squad down which is reducing the wage demands of players as they are not at their peak and demanding a final, large contract.
They invested or reinvested 150mil into transfer fees over their time here. They did put too much faith into the hands of Commolli and Kenny but the money was made available.
They have made several mistakes in their time here too
-Commolli, Kenny and 100mil
- haven't yet addressed the stadium issue but I am willing to be a bit more patient on that front until the summer
- the handling of the Dempsey affair £150 million??? I dont see it mate... Where is it? KK and DC's signing came to £35 million NET... That money came directly from the £50 million loand Hicks and Gillet took out from RBS in 2007. There was £35 million left.. FSG did not undertake due diligence and wasted it. Another FAILURE The sponsorship deals would have come... Look at the Premier League as a whole, Sponsorship deals have been rising. Why would LFC not follow suit? They have saved £30 million this year alone just from wages. But not invested that back into playing staff.. I still can't see why people have such blind faith in FSG considering the above. . I never mentioned net. The owners didn't have to release those funds if they didn't want to. FSG still had to go and get those improved sponsorship deals which they have done quite well. They have saved 30mil in wages which is in and around the amount of money we would have received had we been in the champions league. We can not afford to pay champions league wages until we get back to it. They also spent 32mil net this year so far on transfers. If your not going to factor in NET spend into your debate then We'll have to agree to disagree. LFC have spent in total around £70 million NET since they came in... £35 million for the RBS loan. and The rest from LFC's operating profit.. FSG have not invested a single penny. Let alone £150 million as your post suggested. They have cut the wage bill down by around 22% that was prior to Cole and Sahin leaving...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
Did I once say that they invested anything from their own pocket?? I said that they reinvested money into the club from sales and other income.
I would have thought that reducing the wage bill to near enough 55% was a good thing?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,297 |
Did I once say that they invested anything from their own pocket?? I said that they reinvested money into the club from sales and other income.
I would have thought that reducing the wage bill to near enough 55% was a good thing?
It's their job to ensure that we hit FFP. As owners thats what they should be doing. Do they deserve praise for doing it? NO... Not when it left our Manager 16 outfield players to register for the league! So your saying they could have reduced the wage bill and not bought in any one since they became owners and you would be happy with that? As you said "they didnt have to buy anyone" I think you'll find that if they had done that more people would be inclined to think they are unfit owners... By spending the minimum possible they are just pandering to the fan base and people are lapping it up!
|
|
|
|
|
