KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum What have FSG brought to the table ?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Vish you are not making sense did FSG get the sponsorship deals because they had slicker tongues did they smile at them nicely ? The reason we are getting the deals now I'd because the sponsors want to because the game has taken off commercially it's different to moores day.

Interesting post Stanley. Imo Moores let the grass grow under his feet development wise, in the good years including some poor manager appointments and those two factors in the main led to the downward spiral. He compounded the slide after it started by approving a number of overpriced and bad player signings, including one disaster of a manager appointment.
Are FSG any significant improvement? I think the question is about one season or maybe two premature. On the plus side they have steadied the ship financially and are better at that than previous owners. On the stadium they took the cowardly option and that’s a negative. On managerial appointments they took a gamble and got lucky, so using Napoleon’s yardstick that makes them better on that score also. On player signings they’re cowardly, silly and a disaster so far , so that’s a negative for them.
They have time to get it right , but the jury has to be out for a season or two imo to see if they do. As things stand they are neither better nor worse than Moores, but they might be luckier, time will tell.

So how did United do it when we couldn't then? FSG is doing a better job because they have the skills to do it, having been doing that for a number of years on the sports industry. It's called experience of shrewd business people. It's just like in business, some firms are better than others thanks to their directors/managers. Saying that anybody can do it is actually nonsense.

I am not saying anyone can do it but no one gives money away for nothing and the market is very favourable for sponsorship at the moment with the huge TV money coming into the game I can understand your argument if Manchester United and other clubs are going down but I think they are going up too. The reason man United did better than us I the 1990.s is we were hopeless FSG would have done better so would I but eventually Liverpool got their act together we were getting record sponsorship deals under gilet and hicks

In my books Moores is the worst of all our owners by not taking advantage of our dominance and selling to H&G for a few more bobs. You want FSG to just pour money in LFC whether it makes financial sense or not. I wonder what percentage of your earnings do you put in the club.