|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,813
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,813 |
Man United and Man City are going to be quaking in their boots when they see that. We're better than both of those teams at the moment anyway, so maybe the thought of us expanding might actually be a concern to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,813
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,813 |
But Vish we got £75m for suarez so they were just investing the saurez money in essence not really investment is it ? As for the rest like all premiershio clubs they are just spending tv money. FSG are investing almost nothing either in the team or the stadium First of all, I was talking about Hercules thread about buying only potential, not where the money is coming from. Now, FSG has invested to buy the club and reduce the debt, yes, they have an asset against it, but this is what anybody not throwing away money would do. They have used/invested about 300m of their money to buy the asset, and given an interest free loan of about 100m, basically spent 400m on something that's not generating any returns. Probably that's nothing compared to Chelsea and City owners, but who else has spent more? It's a loan so presumably the club will have to pay back were they serious about the club it would be equity it's also small beer just housekeeping and let's not forget the impact of the TV money an unprecedented windfall. In real terms FSG are investing nothing in the club and I suspect don't have long term plans because they don't intend to be here too long Of course the club will have to pay back, why would they just throw their money away? Would you? From what I have read, the terms of the loan are that the club pay back around £20m per year for the next 5.5 years, interest free.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
The money was there to spend and the manager went for quantity, so how that is that FSG's doing? Maybe you haven't noticed or you don't want to, we were investigated for FFP breach, so we're borderline in terms of transfer/wages spend. Indeed, it looks like you are the case of none so blind as those who do not want to see.
How do you know it was the manager and not the committee?In any case both the manager and the committee are bound by FSG's recruitment policy, and in addition the signings are all signed off by FSG, so that excuse won't wash. Any owners taking over a new club expect to put in significant equity, in order to rebuild, pay off debts and upgrade infrastructure, etc, compare the equity FSG put in against what City's owners put in and you'll get the picture, also the stadium investment would be excerpt from FFP. Your arguments are not impressive. I mentioned FFP for transfers and wages, never said stadium, so don't up words in my mouth. The only owners who put massive equity in any EPL club have been City and Chelsea owners, so that's not the norm, even if it is your wet dream. By the way, the last time the club was put on the market there were not a lot of takers, I remember FSG and a dodgy Chinese guy, so getting Sugar Daddy is not our entitlement. Last, I don't think it's FSG who says what the squad size should be, they hardly understand football.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
Man United and Man City are going to be quaking in their boots when they see that. We're better than both of those teams at the moment anyway, so maybe the thought of us expanding might actually be a concern to them. Explain? Both higher in the league. Both richer. Both better possibilities with regards to stadium. Both more recently won the league. By better, do you mean we are currently playing better football this half of an arbitrary season?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
I mentioned FFP for transfers and wages, never said stadium, so don't up words in my mouth. The only owners who put massive equity in any EPL club have been City and Chelsea owners, so that's not the norm, even if it is your wet dream. By the way, the last time the club was put on the market there were not a lot of takers, I remember FSG and a dodgy Chinese guy, so getting Sugar Daddy is not our entitlement. Last, I don't think it's FSG who says what the squad size should be, they hardly understand football.
Genuine question, I thought we were found to not have breached any FFP rules in the recent investigation? And made a (small) profit last year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
I mentioned FFP for transfers and wages, never said stadium, so don't up words in my mouth. The only owners who put massive equity in any EPL club have been City and Chelsea owners, so that's not the norm, even if it is your wet dream. By the way, the last time the club was put on the market there were not a lot of takers, I remember FSG and a dodgy Chinese guy, so getting Sugar Daddy is not our entitlement. Last, I don't think it's FSG who says what the squad size should be, they hardly understand football.
Genuine question, I thought we were found to not have breached any FFP rules in the recent investigation? And made a (small) profit last year. Indeed, we didn't breach but I am sure we were not too far because those who are investigated are usually border line especially if you look at our profitability figures over the last few years. Last financial year we made less than 1m profit after lowering significantly the wage structure and increasing revenues ,meaning we do not have a huge margin to play with to pay high wages and spend huge transfer fees. Don't you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988 |
From what I read, the reason we were investigated because we got back in europe after a lengthy spell out so they were just checking us which they do to every other club. Nobody from the club or from uefa said we breached anything.
Back to Back World Champions baby!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
From what I read, the reason we were investigated because we got back in europe after a lengthy spell out so they were just checking us which they do to every other club. Nobody from the club or from uefa said we breached anything. Only those who are in Europe can breach, therefore can be investigated, however, we were investigated because of the massive loss we have been making. Teams are allowed a limit on losses but adjusted on investment in infrastructure etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
From what I read, the reason we were investigated because we got back in europe after a lengthy spell out so they were just checking us which they do to every other club. Nobody from the club or from uefa said we breached anything. Only those who are in Europe can breach, therefore can be investigated, however, we were investigated because of the massive loss we have been making. Teams are allowed a limit on losses but adjusted on investment in infrastructure etc. Not much chance of us being investigated for investment in infrastructure is there ?
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 |
From what I read, the reason we were investigated because we got back in europe after a lengthy spell out so they were just checking us which they do to every other club. Nobody from the club or from uefa said we breached anything. Only those who are in Europe can breach, therefore can be investigated, however, we were investigated because of the massive loss we have been making. Teams are allowed a limit on losses but adjusted on investment in infrastructure etc. Not much chance of us being investigated for investment in infrastructure is there ? You are actually wrong as a big part of the losses was due to infrastructure expenditure, this is why we got away without punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
