Notices
Closed Thread
Page 52 of 94 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462 ... LastLast
Results 1,531 to 1,560 of 2800

Thread: FSG - Good, Bad or Indifferent? - including Stadium Expansion Debate.

  1. #1531  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,231
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Stuzzza*** View Post
    Ah gotcha, yeah that's an interesting point. Before my time, but from what I've read about the Shankley era it probably was pretty extravagant spending for it's time - unlikely to have been funded by club revenues.

    Did the earlier Moores have a much more aggressive strategy than our rivals? Yeah, quite probably.

    Did David continue that, but just much less effectively? Or did he choose a more conservative spend what we earn approach? I know we still spent relatively heavily, but was that just what had been afforded by the success of the previous regime?

    Hmmm? I'm getting tempted to find the time to look into it properly.
    Before my time too, going off a lot of reading done over the years.

    I do remember stories about Moores personally forking out for Kuyt, and funding that ill fated Houllier summer of 2002. It's an interesting question though, did we enjoy a financial edge comparable to what we see today with city and Chelsea back in the 1970s?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #1532  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,983
    Quote Originally Posted by redfoot View Post
    No, we just happen to agree on these points. We know you don't. No big deal. Just don't make things personal and we can debate any issue.
    I can't debate with you after your outlandish statements.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #1533  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,231
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    We lost keegan and rush to bigger wages elsewhere. We didnt sign players because of wages and transfer fees too. Thats something that clubs like man city and chelsea care little about. The only reason they are forced to reign their spending in a little is because of ffp.

    With moores, he never tried anything out of the box. He tried to do everything on the cheap. We sold our shares to granada for half the price of what granada bought shares in arsenal for a short while later.

    The constant trying to get players to sign on the cheap. They tried it with fowler, messed mcmanaman around that he left, tried it with gerrard. There are other times when contracts where changed last minute too.

    If you look in the the late 80s and 90s and see what united where doing in tapping in to every market. They went all around the globe, even tried to tap in to the basketball market when basketball started becoming huge! United and sky formed such a close bond that sky nearly bought them. The over exposure of man u on sky gave them so much global power. They just went from strength to strength.

    We on the other hand were trying to run down the local area by buying some houses and boarding them up in the hope the area would get run down and residents would sell on the cheap. Rather than giving them a fair price, that was very bad.

    If moores did not want to pay up we could have moved to numerous sites and sold off anfield and covered a lot of the costs. Moores also messed around kenny when kenny could have returned so many times when he was still a great manager. Instead we went the routes of souness, then the cheap option of roy evans.

    There's so many of his disaster stories but my memory is not what it used to be. But speak to the old boys and lots more stories will come out.

    Oh, also just remembered out terrible deals with carlsberg which the season after parry left we doubled! With moores and parry they just stuck to the basics and hoped us being a superpower would produce a few new stars and everything would be rosey again. We ran the academy in to the ground until rafa tried to restore it. Now fsg are finally trying to sort the academy out once and for all.
    Davy was clueless and took over at precisely the wrong time.

    However, in an era where local business men could own European cup winners, did we have an advantage in the 70s and 80s comparable to what Chelsea and city enjoy, only the owners are foreign rather than local today?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #1534  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10,218
    Quote Originally Posted by -Topper- View Post
    Davy was clueless and took over at precisely the wrong time.

    However, in an era where local business men could own European cup winners, did we have an advantage in the 70s and 80s comparable to what Chelsea and city enjoy, only the owners are foreign rather than local today?
    We did an advantage in 70's and 80's
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #1535  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    17,231
    Quote Originally Posted by redfoot View Post
    We did an advantage in 70's and 80's
    It's just interesting how we love to dismiss Chelsea and City for 'buying' titles with 'oil money,' yet in our glory years did we not have a nice advantage from 'pools' money? Did we enjoy a comparative advantage to those clubs now? Was it 'buying' a title? I mean, it was hardly down to our commercial activities, or the tv deals back then.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #1536  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by -Topper- View Post
    It's just interesting how we love to dismiss Chelsea and City for 'buying' titles with 'oil money,' yet in our glory years did we not have a nice advantage from 'pools' money? Did we enjoy a comparative advantage to those clubs now? Was it 'buying' a title? I mean, it was hardly down to our commercial activities, or the tv deals back then.
    Where Chelsea and City's owners got their money has never really been an issue for me. I just don't think it's possible to amass a fortune like that without exploiting someone somewhere at some time.

    I've just always seen a club finding an owner willing to spend like that as the equivalent of winning the lottery - you either get VERY lucky, or you don't.

    Football club ownership has kind of always been about local businessmen buying the club and putting a few quid in as and when as something of a labour of love rather than a strict business interest.

    But then, the landscape has changed. It's no longer local businessmen - most of them have spent as much as they could and then sold up when they realised it wasn't enough - it's now foreign investors. And presumably many (if not all) of these guys are here not for the love of their club but for profit.

    Does that demand that they invest more of their own money to 'earn' that profit? Yeah, tbf it probably does. Why else were they brought in?

    How have FSG done in that respect? I'm mobile atm so don't have easy access to my records but from memory I believe the numbers are something like 120m for transfers, plus a similar amount on the stadium, and next up a 50m investment in the new training complex - that's getting close to 300m in 7 years.

    Compare that to our revenue when they bought us - about 180m - or now - about 300m - and I'd say that's a fairly significant amount.

    Much more than David Moores could ever have managed, so in terms of why he sold up in the first place we have eventually found someone who could do what he couldn't - but is it enough?

    I'd say it's a fair amount, but it's a lot less than Roman and the Sheikh spent, and they didn't have a pressing stadium issue at the top of their agenda so all theirs went on players. And with FSG coming to the party later they obviously had these newly rich clubs to compete with making the benchmark ever higher.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #1537  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by -Topper- View Post
    It's just interesting how we love to dismiss Chelsea and City for 'buying' titles with 'oil money,' yet in our glory years did we not have a nice advantage from 'pools' money? Did we enjoy a comparative advantage to those clubs now? Was it 'buying' a title? I mean, it was hardly down to our commercial activities, or the tv deals back then.
    No. There is a difference. We took years of graft in trying to build up. Plus in those days the majority of money came from the gate. So the bigger the crowd, the more money you got.

    We were never in a position where we could just spend spend spend. We held a slight advantage over some clubs because we got the prize money for winning some big competitions and we had the appeal of being liverpool fc. But we didnt have the money advantage chelsea and city have. We would have been bankrupt trying to do what they did.

    Just look at how we lost rush and keegan to bigger salaries elsewhere.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #1538  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by -Topper- View Post
    Before my time too, going off a lot of reading done over the years.

    I do remember stories about Moores personally forking out for Kuyt, and funding that ill fated Houllier summer of 2002. It's an interesting question though, did we enjoy a financial edge comparable to what we see today with city and Chelsea back in the 1970s?
    Dont think moores funded the houllier spending out of his own pocket.

    Moores did lend liverpool fc money to buy kuyt because our finances were so bad. The club paid moores back for that. We were close to selling the club to DIC yet they were not giving an answer. So the deal went dead, the club needed players, moores lent the club some money. Part or all its not certain and then he was paid back as it was a debt to the club.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #1539  
    raybarnes is offline Football Discussion Football Poster of the Season 2013-14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    40,154
    Quote Originally Posted by -Topper- View Post
    Davy was clueless and took over at precisely the wrong time.

    However, in an era where local business men could own European cup winners, did we have an advantage in the 70s and 80s comparable to what Chelsea and city enjoy, only the owners are foreign rather than local today?
    Cash is King
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #1540  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    No. There is a difference. We took years of graft in trying to build up. Plus in those days the majority of money came from the gate. So the bigger the crowd, the more money you got.

    We were never in a position where we could just spend spend spend. We held a slight advantage over some clubs because we got the prize money for winning some big competitions and we had the appeal of being liverpool fc. But we didnt have the money advantage chelsea and city have. We would have been bankrupt trying to do what they did.

    Just look at how we lost rush and keegan to bigger salaries elsewhere.
    More comparable to Blackburn then maybe? Just perhaps more prolonged and better sustained?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #1541  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,983
    Quote Originally Posted by raybarnes View Post
    Cash is King
    Chelsea and Leicester last season.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #1542  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by redfoot View Post
    Just read Alisha Usmanov has put in a $1,3 billion takeover bid of Arsenal. Just shows if you don't agree with the owners policies and you have the money, you go for a buyout.
    Hardly a buy out. Hes putting an offer in thats below value. Trying to get the club during a tough season for them. Also he has made a few digs agains kroenke and this seems to be another one to win over the fans.

    If he wanted the club, the guys worth 12billion. Put in an offer of 2 billion and watch them sell up.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #1543  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    28,043
    Quote Originally Posted by raybarnes View Post
    Cash is King
    Cash helps - but ambition and a direction are key
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #1544  
    raybarnes is offline Football Discussion Football Poster of the Season 2013-14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    40,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Cash helps - but ambition and a direction are key
    All are needed
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #1545  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    Hardly a buy out. Hes putting an offer in thats below value. Trying to get the club during a tough season for them. Also he has made a few digs agains kroenke and this seems to be another one to win over the fans.

    If he wanted the club, the guys worth 12billion. Put in an offer of 2 billion and watch them sell up.
    What exactly is the offer? Is it based on total value of the club or is it 1bn just for Kroenke's 67%? I suspect probably the latter, and it will be based on their current market valuation.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #1546  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Stuzzza*** View Post
    What exactly is the offer? Is it based on total value of the club or is it 1bn just for Kroenke's 67%? I suspect probably the latter, and it will be based on their current market valuation.
    Possibly. But my point is if a guy wants to buy a club like a roman or sheikh, he cane just simply put an offer in that no business man would refuse. Like if someone offered well above market value for lfc, fsg would sell. The only two owners who would not are roman and sheikh. Because they did not buy the clubs to be an asset, more an enjoyment for them.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #1547  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    Possibly. But my point is if a guy wants to buy a club like a roman or sheikh, he cane just simply put an offer in that no business man would refuse. Like if someone offered well above market value for lfc, fsg would sell. The only two owners who would not are roman and sheikh. Because they did not buy the clubs to be an asset, more an enjoyment for them.
    You don't make that your opening bid though. Starting at market value makes perfect sense, especially if you feel that by going public you can garner significant public support.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #1548  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Cash helps - but ambition and a direction are key
    Fsg have the ambition. Shown by sacking three managers.

    We have the direction with klopp.

    We have cash with our revenues being very high but we are behind four other teams in this department. Reality.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #1549  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Stuzzza*** View Post
    You don't make that your opening bid though. Starting at market value makes perfect sense, especially if you feel that by going public you can garner significant public support.
    Im thinking this is more of a publicity stunt in trying to get fans on his side and get stan to sell his shares cheaper. If stan does not sell his shares cheaper, i dont see usmanov buying them at an inflated rate.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #1550  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    28,043
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    Fsg have the ambition. Shown by sacking three managers.

    We have the direction with klopp.

    We have cash with our revenues being very high but we are behind four other teams in this department. Reality.
    Thats your opinion - not mine
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #1551  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Stuzzza*** View Post
    More comparable to Blackburn then maybe? Just perhaps more prolonged and better sustained?
    No again.

    Walker did not have endless pockets and lost a lot of the players later to bigger fees.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football...le-earned-1995
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #1552  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteron View Post
    Thats your opinion - not mine
    So you dont think fsg have ambition?
    Or you dont think klopp is the right direction?

    Which one?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #1553  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    Im thinking this is more of a publicity stunt in trying to get fans on his side and get stan to sell his shares cheaper. If stan does not sell his shares cheaper, i dont see usmanov buying them at an inflated rate.
    Well obviously he doesn't want to pay a BILLION POUNDS more than they're worth. He's not an idiot. Even if he's got massively ambitious plans for the club he'd be looking at spending that billion on players over quite a good few years. Why set his plans back by giving Kroenke a huge profit - especially if he feels that Kroenke is doing more harm than good.

    Of course his best approach is to make a fair offer and hope that public pressure brings Kroenke to the table.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #1554  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    No again.

    Walker did not have endless pockets and lost a lot of the players later to bigger fees.

    https://www.theguardian.com/football...le-earned-1995
    Yeah, so like us then? Invest heavily to get to the top, but not sustained investment to stay there and not so huge that you're spending is on a completely different level to the rest of the football world.

    We're talking about our original growth under the earlier Moores.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #1555  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Stuzzza*** View Post
    Well obviously he doesn't want to pay a BILLION POUNDS more than they're worth. He's not an idiot. Even if he's got massively ambitious plans for the club he'd be looking at spending that billion on players over quite a good few years. Why set his plans back by giving Kroenke a huge profit - especially if he feels that Kroenke is doing more harm than good.

    Of course his best approach is to make a fair offer and hope that public pressure brings Kroenke to the table.
    Yes of course. This is something you have to tell the other guys on here that keep saying 'whats a few billion to billionaires' etc. About how 70m is nothing to john henry and he could easily fund it himself.

    What i said to them was that if it was like that, then billionaires would be easy to find and get them to spend a 'few billion, whats a few billion to them'.

    Redfoot posted that usmanov will buy the club. Redfoots mates are worth a combined 115billion yet he cant get them to spend a couple of billion on us!
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #1556  
    MishMasch is offline First team regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    30,144
    'Ambition' isn't a black and white term though. It's not something you have or don't have, there are degrees of it. With football there's a lot of moving parts. I think FSG do have a level of ambition, what I think we lack is maybe top people in some key areas.
    Last edited by MishMasch; 20-5-17 at 12:26.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #1557  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    Yes of course. This is something you have to tell the other guys on here that keep saying 'whats a few billion to billionaires' etc. About how 70m is nothing to john henry and he could easily fund it himself.

    What i said to them was that if it was like that, then billionaires would be easy to find and get them to spend a 'few billion, whats a few billion to them'.

    Redfoot posted that usmanov will buy the club. Redfoots mates are worth a combined 115billion yet he cant get them to spend a couple of billion on us!
    Sorry. It gets confusing when you're talking to me as if I'm someone else and you're 'arguing' for other people too.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #1558  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport...ulian-13059060

    For those saying we didnt go for anyone in jan and money wasnt available and klopp is lying.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #1559  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by ***Stuzzza*** View Post
    Sorry. It gets confusing when you're talking to me as if I'm someone else and you're 'arguing' for other people too.
    Sorry for the confusion. But if you read my post at 12:02 you will see the point i was making the whole time.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #1560  
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    23,750
    Quote Originally Posted by PejiVanbasten View Post
    Sorry for the confusion. But if you read my post at 12:02 you will see the point i was making the whole time.
    Not really. I thought you'd since agreed that it's highly unlikely anyone would actually do that? And that I need to explain that to others rather than you?
    Suggesting you already knew that before posting.

    Never mind.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •