KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 103 1 2 3 4 5 … 102 103
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
D
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
D Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
Originally Posted By: Ninja Skrtel
Well, saying we "could" argue we are better off commercially is like saying you could argue Luis Suarez is a good footballer.

There is no "could". We are. Without a doubt. So that's one thing they did. Secondly, we could have done the same under Moore's with better management, but WE DIDN'T. Under FSG, WE DID.

Also, they have moved on the stadium issue, which we could have don't previously, but we didn't. Under FSG, WE DID.

Seems they have addressed all the core issues.


They haven't addressed a single issue off the field. Even now the ground after all this time is not even at the planning stage. And no one was more surprised than FSG at our league position let's see if they back Rodgers in transfers no more Aspas type players please


Eh?

You've lost the plot pal. You might not be personally happy with the ownership, but that statement above is a barefaced lie.

You're in to deep.

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
M
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
M Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
Moores sold out because he did not have the funds to take the club forward albeit he was a very rich man. He also was a majority shareholder. Ok his commercial sense was not the greatest let's say.

1)But in terms of financial muscle I don't think we have achieved significantly more with either of the two American owners since moores in fact we seem to have slightly gone backwards.

2)Now of course you could say we now have greater marketing and commercial expertise and so we do. However that could also gave been achieved with the right management team around moores. It certainly would have been more agile decision making than we have seen since FSG took over.

3)Other than the odd sponsorship deal (which you could argue we could have got anyway) what have we really achieved ?

4)The ground redevelopment I am sure we could have done with moores and done it ten years earlier. Commercial development is a moot point.

My view is largely since moores sold our we have stood still for almost a decade and the final outcome after all that is largely underwhelming


1) How have we gone backwards? We earn far more revenue than we did under Moores

2) You always say anyone could have done this but the fact remains that no one did improve our commercial fortunes as much as FSG did. They have been extremely aggressive in building our sponsorship network and brought us to a competitive level on that front

3) we are back in the CL under FSG who chose the right manager, have spent a relatively significant amount of money and rescued the club from administration

4) We should have done it with Moores but the fact remains that we didn't nor did we do it with H&G. We are finally seeing some action for once. You mightn't agree that its the right plan. You are entitled to your opinion on that. I happen to disagree with you but you cannot argue that we are finally going to see a redevelopment and matchday revenue to massively improve, mostly as a result of increased corporate seating

We stood still for probably 6/7 years of that decade as H&G were involved and were nothing more than cowboys. FSG have improved the financial side of Liverpool no end and they deserve credit for that. You may dislike them but don't dismiss facts

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 163
Under 16 Player
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 163
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
Originally Posted By: boxmonkey
They have given us the best ownership we've ever had with regards to comercial dealings, they've made progress with a near impossible task of updating Anfield, they've given us a potentialy great attacking manager that knows how to play football the Liverpool way (not the counter attacking [oops] we've played for over 10 years) they have stopped giving people like Joe Cole £120k a week, they have given me hope that we can win the league again, that have made united fans talk about us as a threat again.



Had moores stayed by inflation and economic growth the commercial dealings would have been the best they have ever been just like your wages now are probably the best they have ever been. As for the playing side that's Rodgers unless John Henry coaches and lpicks the team


This begs the question what is it you were expecting FSG to do above and beyond what it is they have done already?

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 806
Under 18 Player
Under 18 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 806
Less than what they've brought to their American franchises that's for sure. They've invested a lot more into those ventures over the last 3 years.

The figures are their to see. Do your research. I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it. Fsg are huge admirers of arsenal and the structure of their club. The financial side of arsenal is what they admire..... They held meetings with arsenal about buying into arsenal etc etc.


Read between my lines.
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
M
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
M Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
What have they invested into the Red Sox that wasn't earned by them?

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
D
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
D Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
Originally Posted By: Maxi88
What have they invested into the Red Sox that wasn't earned by them?


This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Red Sox.

You can put what ever spin you want on it, but until you can prove they are taking money raised by LFC and pumping it into the Red Sox, then the argument is a complete non starter.

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
D
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
D Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
Who cares if they like the Red Sox more?

It's their money.

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
M
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
M Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted By: Duncan_Donut
Originally Posted By: Maxi88
What have they invested into the Red Sox that wasn't earned by them?


This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Red Sox.

You can put what ever spin you want on it, but until you can prove they are taking money raised by LFC and pumping it into the Red Sox, then the argument is a complete non starter.



I know that. I have never once said anything approaching an allegation like that. My point is that they earn far more revenue than they pay to players so I wasn't sure what extra they have invested in the Red Sox than they invest in LFC. Both teams appear to me to be run along very similar lines

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 163
Under 16 Player
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 163
Originally Posted By: Duncan_Donut
Who cares if they like the Red Sox more?

It's their money.


+1

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
This is what happens when there are no concrete arguments against FSG's running of the club. There is no evidence that they have done anything bad in the past two years, quite the opposite. All the evidence points towards LFC being far better off now than the decade prior to their purchase of the club.

People turn to baseball and how much they invested elsewhere. I don't care how much they invested in the red Sox, i want to know, have they improved LFC? The answer is undoubtedly YES.


Sign Reus
Page 3 of 103 1 2 3 4 5 … 102 103

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion