|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
When I go to anfield on the train I quite often see people who have come on the anfield experience for some reason the operators put them up in manchester and I am on that train. They look Chinese, Korean or Japanese in appearance and they are always festooned with memorabilia from anfield it's the package that attracts people the crowd the impressive stadium the atmosphere the team and match result on the day is almost a side show. I feel this way too and I felt the same when I went to anfield in the early 1970's even today I don't just go for the result alone even after watching liverpool for 50 years. I find it incomprehensible that anyone would think the stadium is irrelevant. FSG model seems to be to refurbish one stand at the cheapest cost and cram as many into the ground as possible and flog it at the highest price marketing on something that happended fifty years ago. There is only so long people will be taken in by that. Also when I am at anfield my guess from hearing people speak is maybe sixty per cent are from the merseyside area these people are being progressively priced out so what the future is for Liverpool FC I am really not sure. Not everybody is the same but personally, I would pay to go to only LFC games. I've been to London a number of times and not once I was bothered to go to a game there, however, I took the train to go to Liverpool and do the Anfield tour. That's only because I am a fan of LFC which is a result of what we were winning and the history. Yes, it would be great to have both, ie new stadium and investment in players, but if resources are limited and a choice is needed, then I will go with the one stand + POSSIBILITY TO INVEST IN THE TEAM ANYTIME. But the problem is they’re not investing in the team i.e. the first eleven. They’re spending a fortune on overpriced ‘potential’s’ many of which are unplayable and and therefore useless as a resource, except at possibly some far date in the future. If they were investing in proven top quality for the first eleven including for backup I would have some empathy with your viewpoint but they aren’t unfortunately. What the hell are you talking about? Our most expensive players in the last window were Lallana, Lovren and Markovic for a combined fee of around 65m. Are Lallana and Lovren for the future? You could say Marcovic can be, given his age, but he did cost us 20m, you don't put that kind of money on potentials. Even Moreno and Balotelli were bought for the first team. You can say that those who bought didn't do a good job, but don't say that we are anly buying potential, it's nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
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
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
Good God, that looks terrible, not sure I trust these owners to put that stuff back up, especially if it costs any money! Might well be left to rot in a basement somewhere!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
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
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
When I go to anfield on the train I quite often see people who have come on the anfield experience for some reason the operators put them up in manchester and I am on that train. They look Chinese, Korean or Japanese in appearance and they are always festooned with memorabilia from anfield it's the package that attracts people the crowd the impressive stadium the atmosphere the team and match result on the day is almost a side show. I feel this way too and I felt the same when I went to anfield in the early 1970's even today I don't just go for the result alone even after watching liverpool for 50 years. I find it incomprehensible that anyone would think the stadium is irrelevant. FSG model seems to be to refurbish one stand at the cheapest cost and cram as many into the ground as possible and flog it at the highest price marketing on something that happended fifty years ago. There is only so long people will be taken in by that. Also when I am at anfield my guess from hearing people speak is maybe sixty per cent are from the merseyside area these people are being progressively priced out so what the future is for Liverpool FC I am really not sure. Not everybody is the same but personally, I would pay to go to only LFC games. I've been to London a number of times and not once I was bothered to go to a game there, however, I took the train to go to Liverpool and do the Anfield tour. That's only because I am a fan of LFC which is a result of what we were winning and the history. Yes, it would be great to have both, ie new stadium and investment in players, but if resources are limited and a choice is needed, then I will go with the one stand + POSSIBILITY TO INVEST IN THE TEAM ANYTIME. But the problem is they’re not investing in the team i.e. the first eleven. They’re spending a fortune on overpriced ‘potential’s’ many of which are unplayable and and therefore useless as a resource, except at possibly some far date in the future. If they were investing in proven top quality for the first eleven including for backup I would have some empathy with your viewpoint but they aren’t unfortunately. What the hell are you talking about? Our most expensive players in the last window were Lallana, Lovren and Markovic for a combined fee of around 65m. Are Lallana and Lovren for the future? You could say Marcovic can be, given his age, but he did cost us 20m, you don't put that kind of money on potentials. Even Moreno and Balotelli were bought for the first team. You can say that those who bought didn't do a good job, but don't say that we are anly buying potential, it's nonsense. Ha, ha, you've answered you're own rather belligerent question! Those three are among our most expensive signings over a number of transfer windows, and yet FSG could pocket 10k or so after the sale of one, yes one of our players! They may have been the most expensive players in the last window but as we've seen from our Suarez sale it takes close on four times their value to sign proven top quality these days. What 20m gets you in today's transfer market is a one step up potential above the bottom rung, or else a mid table player, how come you don't know that? Or is it a case of none so blind as those who do not want to see?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 590
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 590 |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
