KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum FSG: How are they Doing?

The Red Sox just won the World Series, and we are off to our brightest start in quite some time. Over the years I've observed people who love them in all circumstances and who hate them in all circumstances. What is the general consensus of them now?

I have been neutral positive on FSG for quite some time. In my eyes they aren't exactly ideal owners. I wish they had deeper pockets, and it took them awhile to get their bearings, but it seems they have become more effective football organization. They have always seemed like they have been MUCH better than the cowboys who nearly got us put through administration, and better than the poor leadership that has been plaguing formerly large clubs like Leeds, Villa, Newcastle, etc. Even the likes of Arsenal and United have been frustrated with their leadership recently.

Positives? Recruitment (which was previously a major weakness) in the past 2 or 3 years has actually been very good, particularly last year. We've broken records to fix the obvious problems at CB and goal-keeper, and supplemented that with bargain gems in Robertson, Trent, Gomez, etc. Know talent competing in Europe is starting to come here when we make offers (Salah, Fabinho, Keita, etc), and although we have lost Suarez and Coutinho, we seem to have gotten better about rebuffing offers until we are more ready, and are some distance from losing our best players year after year. The likes of Ayre, Commoli and the transfer committee seemed to have issues, but Edwards seems like he knows what he's doing, and hasn't really made a dud signing yet.

Commercially we seem to be healthy. Shirt sales, profits, and advertising is going well. We have increased our revenues from 400 Million to 424 million Euros, moving back into the top 10 richest clubs in the world (ahead of 9th place Juventus and a mere 3.8 million behind Chelsea in 8th). We've increased our stadium capacity slightly, and we recorded healthy profits two years in a row. Still a ways to go to rival the likes of City or United, but certainly improved. And unlike many of our London rivals, we have frozen our ticket prices as Spurs, Chelsea, and Arsenal get only more expensive to watch.

On the pitch we have improved considerably. Comparing the likes of Roy Hodgson to Klopp is perhaps unfair, but we have a much stronger squad that has become an established champions league club again at last and returned to the top 20 in Europe again.

The negatives? The blokes who keep winning the league are 100 million richer than us, and we have only won 1 solitary trophy in their tenure, despite finishing runners up in the Europa league, Champions League, Premier League, League Cup, and FA cup, and a handful of semifinal appearances. The stadium is better, but it is not the Emirates or the Ethihad in terms of sheer grandeur or amenities.

Thoughts?

klopp...klopp is the reason ..mostly..as to why lfc are doing ok atm.

Without klop lfc would be rudderless.he makes fsg seem better than they are...net spend very little from them.

And who employed Klopp?

When they took over, Roy Hodgson was our manager. Who hired him? If they made a good hire, surely that is a credit to them.

FSG are doing well as they are just leaving Klopp to it, keep signing the cheques and doing the deals.

The most important job an owner can do is bring in the right manager and back them, Utd are learning that.

Many companies make mistakes with hiring and firing. FSG recognised their early mistakes and acted quickly. Hiring Klopp was part masterful and part wonderfully good fortune, because he has the personality and wisdom to handle the job like, I believe, no one else could.
So "boo-yaa" to the Americans. It's looking jolly good at the moment and I haven't been this confident of success since last century.

I've always been reasonably neutral towards them.

If we'd had another low-moderate net summer spend I could see things turning sour but they pulled a great summer out the bag, backed Klopp and when you look around at other clubs like the one's you mentioned, you have to give them credit.

They're clearly brilliant businessmen. It COULD be rosier, but I honestly wouldn't have wanted the ridiculous spend and waste we've seen from City.

Easy to be positive at the moment of course. I put the majority share on Klopp, and the fact Jose's up to his old tricks at old toilet despite spending huge amounts.

It took them awhile however I'm glad they seem to have seen sense? that their original blueprint for on the field success was seriously flawed. Whether they maintain the current plan is the question?

Being part of the Champions League consistently year after year should be the highest priority because it brings the biggest financial rewards in the game and puts us at a huge advantage in bringing the best players to the club.

I think Neil Warnock may be right about this years Liverpool in that we are probably much better suited to winning The Champions League because Man City may take awhile longer to topple in the Premier League. If FSG can keep backing Klopp's transfer targets and not sell any of our top players then next season we will be much better prepared for that elusive 1st Premier League title.

I don't think moneyball was the problem, I think it was execution. They have the proper analytics team in place to find value. Yes we spent big at CB and GK, but when that is in context with what Gomez, Trent, and Robertson cost, we re-built a backline that could last for 5-6 years for less than 150 Million. Compare that to City who spent large sums on every part and spent much more on a backline that isn't any better than ours to my eyes.

Mane, Firmino, and Salah were all undervalued. So were Coutinho and Suarez who we sold for record amounts.

FSG have also been willing to buy quality players when required, that's a new strategy as we were never really competing with our big rivals for players, with players like VvD & Allison costing big money, but I guess that is based on how they have seen the value of the club increase exponentially, a £300 million investment is now worth around £2 billion, not a bad return.....