|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 940
Under 18 Player
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 940 |
We can hope for an oligarch type ownership that certainty seems the way to supercharge success in modern football. The big investors look at many factors when investing in a football club and you see the money usually heading towards geographical locations with better dynamics in respect to population base, spending power, etc. LFC is not a London based club. On a positive note, revenue has also shifted considerably from stadium ticket sales to broadcasting rights and sponsorship’s etc. I suppose the question is now if Liverpool is enough of a brand name today for an oligarch type of investor to invest in and leverage on. Personally, I have felt for a long time that an oligarch type of ownership is the only solution to success in coming times and secretly had misgivings when LFC rejected the DIC offer. Is FSG going to massively invest in infrastructure in the short term? No, they are not that kind of owners but I do see them trying to better the product and maybe when or if they sell on, we may get our sugar daddy. I just don't know if that day would come.
Last edited by Sahl; 16/02/15 04:24 PM.
I am only responsible for what I write. Not for what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
FSG are not going to make up for 25 years of falling behind, no. Only the type of owners City, PSG, Chelsea have can do that and I think I made my opinion on that clear. Success at any price isn't enough for me; it'd be too tainted. But that's my view I don't expect many to agree.
It's not a case of being prepared to accept slow growth; it simply is where we're at. When and to whom they sell, I have absolutely no idea. Nor have I drawn up a list of preferred candidates.
My preference would have be fan ownership but that option passed 5 years ago. It'll happen now only if the club collapses financially. And I don't want that either. What we have with FSG is a gamble. They gambled on Red Socks and we're/are partially successful. They gambled on Rodgers and we're/are partially successful. John Henry was a professional gambler in Las Vagas using a system based on statistics. He took a gamble on Liverpool albeit a smart well reasoned gamble with flawless timing. It remains to be seen if he wins on the Liverpool gamble, and if I was a gambling man, I'd bet that he will. However success for John Henry is most unlikely to equate to success for us fans, as he doesn't have to win anything to be successful, just so long as Liverpool FC alternates between 6th and 4th or 3rd, until he decides it appropriate to sell up and move on. He obviously doesn't see himself here for the long haul, if he did he'd have invested in a decent stadium as now is the optimum moment with interest rates at record lows and governments deliberately trying to stoke inflation. There will never be a better time and Henry knows that, so it short term for him, and very few wins of any significance for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
FSG are not going to make up for 25 years of falling behind, no. Only the type of owners City, PSG, Chelsea have can do that and I think I made my opinion on that clear. Success at any price isn't enough for me; it'd be too tainted. But that's my view I don't expect many to agree.
It's not a case of being prepared to accept slow growth; it simply is where we're at. When and to whom they sell, I have absolutely no idea. Nor have I drawn up a list of preferred candidates.
My preference would have be fan ownership but that option passed 5 years ago. It'll happen now only if the club collapses financially. And I don't want that either. What we have with FSG is a gamble. They gambled on Red Socks and we're/are partially successful. They gambled on Rodgers and we're/are partially successful. John Henry was a professional gambler in Las Vagas using a system based on statistics. He took a gamble on Liverpool albeit a smart well reasoned gamble with flawless timing. It remains to be seen if he wins on the Liverpool gamble, and if I was a gambling man, I'd bet that he will. However success for John Henry is most unlikely to equate to success for us fans, as he doesn't have to win anything to be successful, just so long as Liverpool FC alternates between 6th and 4th or 3rd, until he decides it appropriate to sell up and move on. He obviously doesn't see himself here for the long haul, if he did he'd have invested in a decent stadium as now is the optimum moment with interest rates at record lows and governments deliberately trying to stoke inflation. There will never be a better time and Henry knows that, so it short term for him, and very few wins of any significance for us. Very well put.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,542
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,542 |
I don't think people are asking too much at all.
They just want a billionaire, someone who's made billions by being emotionally disattached to business and areas and priotising profit and market value over all else, who's willing to lose hundreds of millions investing in a football club they have no ties or allegiances too, whilst living locally and tarting up the local area.
They need to keep with the history and tradition of the club in supporting and developing youth, whilst paying 300k a week to the worlds best players, who in turn will move to the area, do some charity work, and tart the place up a bit.
Then they'll build an all-seater 80k stadium that will take a lifetime to repay, call it Anfield: Reborn, half ticket prices and prioritise those born in liverpool, since they're just lovely and have a sense of humour lost on us outsiders.
While I'm at it, Bring Back Rafa.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 125
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 125 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 125
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 125 |
A lot of the exchange above was about statement and rebuttal between me and Stanley Park. However, I am genuinely interested about who you (generically) want to own and manage LFC. What/who will stop the whining, what's acceptable?
Only the owners that pump in 1/4 or 1/2 billion ? Regardless of who they are; it's all forgiven as long as we have an EPL title in 2 years. Is that it ?????
Feck me, we've sunk low if that's it......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,614
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,614 |
I'm curious, how many of you actually want a sugar daddy type owner?
I'm all for Chelsea, City, PSG etc having these mega rich owners but personally I wouldn't want us to join them.
The way I see it, these sugar daddies see their club as a hobby. Now, what happens when the child gets bored of their hobby? They up and leave with no care for the future of the club. I wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea and City both have significant financial troubles if/when either Abramovic or the Sheiks leave their club and sell on. I don't see them being interested in making a huge profit as is being shown by their ridiculous investment.
I think FSG see LFC as a business whereas Abramovic sees Chelsea as a game. These mega rich owners want the best toys (championships and players) and will pay out extreme amounts of money to get them but at the end of the day are they actually adding value to their investment? Are they turning over a profit? I could be wrong but (without actually researching) I don't believe they are.
When these owners get bored of their games I see them selling on quickly without a care for the club or whomever the buyer is (maybe with the exception of Roman) causing each of these clubs to go through financial hardship.
Right now FSG have bought an asset that was rapidly decreasing in value and have stabilised the club. They've brought in a promising, young manager and put together a very talented young team. We are turning a profit and about to upgrade our stadium to increase our revenue and in turn give us more opportunity to invest in players and fight for trophies whilst constantly increasing the value of the asset.
I think they are doing tremendously well and long may they continue at the helm.
Your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
I'm curious, how many of you actually want a sugar daddy type owner?
I'm all for Chelsea, City, PSG etc having these mega rich owners but personally I wouldn't want us to join them.
The way I see it, these sugar daddies see their club as a hobby. Now, what happens when the child gets bored of their hobby? They up and leave with no care for the future of the club. I wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea and City both have significant financial troubles if/when either Abramovic or the Sheiks leave their club and sell on. I don't see them being interested in making a huge profit as is being shown by their ridiculous investment.
I think FSG see LFC as a business whereas Abramovic sees Chelsea as a game. These mega rich owners want the best toys (championships and players) and will pay out extreme amounts of money to get them but at the end of the day are they actually adding value to their investment? Are they turning over a profit? I could be wrong but (without actually researching) I don't believe they are.
When these owners get bored of their games I see them selling on quickly without a care for the club or whomever the buyer is (maybe with the exception of Roman) causing each of these clubs to go through financial hardship.
Right now FSG have bought an asset that was rapidly decreasing in value and have stabilised the club. They've brought in a promising, young manager and put together a very talented young team. We are turning a profit and about to upgrade our stadium to increase our revenue and in turn give us more opportunity to invest in players and fight for trophies whilst constantly increasing the value of the asset.
I think they are doing tremendously well and long may they continue at the helm. I would personally prefer an Abramovic/Sheik Mansoor type owner, run a poll you'll have an indication. And why do you think Abramovic or the Sheiks are going to be bored, haven't seen any such indication, in fact, thek look more interested than Werner. Also, what's a promissing young manager, I prefer a proven trophy winner, LFC shouldn't be an education centre for managers to learn their trade, same goes with players. If it is just a training ground they would just leave when they are good. Sterling is some kind of a litmus test actually.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
Firstly as vish as pointed out the oligarchs who put money in for a hobby are at least interested in the game unlike remote investor owners. But my point is football as a sport has totally lost its soul and is entirely connected with branding and making money at all levels we are light years from the days of Nottingham forest and Derby where clubs grew by virtue of performances on the field those days are gone. Money today is everything so the notion we are somehow more virtuous because we don't have a rich owner (or one that will part with money) is preposterous. And in any case there is a clear hint FSG are preparing for exit anyway so you can forget any serious support of the club until they sell up
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Firstly as vish as pointed out the oligarchs who put money in for a hobby are at least interested in the game unlike remote investor owners. But my point is football as a sport has totally lost its soul and is entirely connected with branding and making money at all levels we are light years from the days of Nottingham forest and Derby where clubs grew by virtue of performances on the field those days are gone. Money today is everything so the notion we are somehow more virtuous because we don't have a rich owner (or one that will part with money) is preposterous. And in any case there is a clear hint FSG are preparing for exit anyway so you can forget any serious support of the club until they sell up I see no indication that they will sell up, not sure how you came to that conclusion. I think that they will rather go for a flotation once the club becomes profitable.
|
|
|
|
|
