KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Is Rodgers in control?

They've spent over £120m, but net spend of just over £75m...

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/liverpool-transfers.html

To date, their net spend has been 120 million over 2 seasons. That's a fair amount of money.

Ok, miscalculation, you got me. But according to these numbers, they've had the highest net spend since 2007, and that was basically a one off.

As a business they would want to make money out of it, I am not saying they want dividends payouts now, but the untimate goal is to have returns, either by keeping the club and fork out dividends or sell it to somebody else and make a profit. The fact that they have just paid dividends proves this, they have just started because the investments they made in the past can afford to pay dividends now. By the way, RedSox won a couple of championships and then went very quiet for years, it could be better this year.

They are trying to do the same thing with football and they are still learning, doesn't mean they will though. United if I am not mistaken (I will check it after posting) have paid 50m of interst on top of dividends last year and FSG saw that a club having a fan base like LFC could compete, but, they didn't know it would be as complicated and expected FFP to change the environment. They cannot asset strip as they will not be able to recoup what they have spent to buy the club and have been investing in players will sell on value so that their asset (LFC) gains value in time. The Arabs (City, PSG and even Barca to some extent) on the other hand are in it for the pride and Abramovich because he loves the game and Chelsea is his big entertainment as a fan. Henry is nowhere near in terms of wealth and still needs returns.

FSG don't sell sports ventures, they return them to success and profitability and run them under the same umbrella. "It could be better this year" for the Red Sox, is like saying there aren't always going to be ups and downs. Success in sport is never permanent. So long as you never settle for not being the best, and put 100% in, you'll always be there or there abouts. FSG have reworked an unsuccessful season into one that the Red Sox can now prosper. It makes sense to make these clubs successful, because that is where they biggest income comes in, and that is where, by proxy, their umbrella company makes more money. Who is to say that any dividends will continue. It could be a short-term payment and another one is not taken out over the same period of 10 years. The value is in the company, not paid out of it. You seem to be flowering over the details. They have, until now, never taken money out of the business to pay themselves. This disproves all fans thinking FSG are here just for money. Liverpool FC is the most global brand under their umbrella. Selling us, is selling all the means of spreading the brand across the pond from America. Am I speaking a language foreign to you, or are you just choosing to ignore the facts. They buy clubs, run them sustainably, and try to be successful under those conditions. Whether you think they can or can't be successful is one thing, but accusing them of trying to settle for small profits for average success doesn't fit their mentality as investors or as a brand striving for sports clubs to be successful long-term.

As for the pedestal you put the other owners on, its baffling. Abrahmovic nearly pulled his funding a few years ago after losing heart in the game. You know that a football club running above its means (covered only by owners input) is completely unsustainable, so why kid yourself that this would be best for every club. As soon as the sugar-daddy owner leaves, you're left with assets that need to be sold or you go under. I just don't get the sense in it. There is no credence to it. Its mind-boggling - and not because I don't understand what you're trying to suggest, only that suggestion makes little sense to me.

The club, like any club, has to be running sustainably. FSG have been working hard to bring more revenue into Livepool, and have begun to rebuild the squad so that money pays for success. You play well, you get more. You improve the club, the club improves your wage packet. Incentivised rather than mis-placed spending on players who are underserving when compared to contribution. Given that they're close to announcing the stadium expansion plans with specifics, that has all been self-funded too. Which is a lot of money. They've done more for the rebuilding of this club than ever could have been anticipated without an owners own cash. You might not like the short term sacrifices, but it was NEVER going to be a short term change without huge money.

Most of City's money comes from a payment made from a company the club owner owns. They are also paying stupendous percentages of that money on players. over 80% of revenue of that.

Then look at Chelsea. Here is a quote from the independent:


"Chelsea insist they are on course to meet Uefa's Financial Fair Play requirements after reporting an annual profit of £1.4m for the year ending in June, a dramatic turnaround from the previous year's £67.7m loss.

It is the first time in Roman Abramovich's nine-year tenure that the club has declared a profit; it has been able to do so thanks to winning a first Champions League title, the prize the Russian billionaire coveted since he set foot in Stamford Bridge in 2003, and the fact that much of this summer's spending spree falls into next year's results. The club has also shed high-earners such as Didier Drogba and Nicolas Anelka from its wage bill."

Most of the spending spree is to fall under next seasons accounts... Wow...

They could rack up 10 years of deals and delay when they're accounted for... Oh wait, no they can't. Proof will be in time. Unless they continue to be successful, that slim profit won't be copied again. One bad season, and they have to sell players to cover the cost. That is not sustained reasoned approach to business, and again, unless they bring in more revenue on matchdays, or continue to copy Citys attempts to bypass FFP with own owner investments, they'll fall the same way.

You don't want to accept that FSG want us to be successful, you have no proof, but think that they're just here for "bucks" and then they'll leave. I'm not going to bother arguing back. You've given me little proof of what you think they're doing, and have disregarded everything I have shown you that disproves it. We won't agree, because I believe the facts in front of me. FSG don't pay dividends often. FSG make clubs sustainable. FSG redistribute wealth under the umbrella where necessary. FSG are looking to improve the stadia, and have spent big on the squad. FSG have brought success to every venture they've invested in. Disregard if you like, but they are all truths you don't have the proof to convince me otherwise of...

You haven't convinced me neither when you tell me that FSG is not in it for the money but only to make LFC successful. FSG and FSM are businesses who need to make money either through dividends, management fees, franchise fees, marketing fees, share sale, floatation of their investment. I agree that it will make sense for them to make LFC successful but only if the expenditure involved is worthwhile. The only way it can work is if FFP is effective and FSG learn the football business quickly, so far I cannot call their endeavour a success, I hope they get it right.

You're misquoting me again! Please stop that Vish. I said they weren't in it for just the money. I also proved that they don't get dividends regularly. You can misrepresent yourself, NOT ME. It is not right. You're stating all of your opinions as though they are all correct. Of course they want to make some money out of any investment, and they have means for doing it. To say it is the only goal for any of these football owners is single-minded though. There is not only one way for it to work, there's truth with delusion, and delusional truths. You can hold an opinion on it, but don't suggest them as facts, because they're not. The only things that are true are that they have a lot better record of running a sports club than you or me or any fan, and have a proven track record of turning around sports clubs. In my eyes, you should respect them as such. This use of FSG as blasphemy must stop on here. Its petty. And there is no grounding to it.