Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 19 of 30 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 570 of 883

Thread: FSG.....Wimps or what?

  1. #541  
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by EmreSam View Post
    What you're not getting is they DO have the funds. What happened to the 70m we bid for Keita? (Please don't give me the conspiracy nonsense). Did John Henry accidentally flush it down his toilet?
    Put it on his mattress for all I know but no way Klopp is happy with this squad and unable to identify targets unless he must compromise on what he wants.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #542  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    Again, glad we got that out of the way finally.
    I dont know what you are arguing over then? my original point was FSG need Coutinho.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #543  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,348
    Quote Originally Posted by EmreSam View Post
    Who maintained that nothing more is needed? Klopp or FSG?
    What else can he say, he wanted a minimum of a top CM and a top CD, he got neither. He can't now say that what we have is not good enough, he can't say we need better in defence and midfield (even though by going for top class players, this is clearly the case). JK has to put a positive spin on it, he has no other choice, he can't destroy the confidence of the players he has to work with every day.

    If he really believes that nothing more is needed, then why the hell have we been trying to spend over 100 mil on 2 players for the whole window if they are not needed?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #544  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,117
    I don't really care whether a player was our third choice or first. What matters is whether he solves your problems for you and he has high enough quality to make a good improvement to your team.

    I understand the importance of a manager getting exactly who he wants, to satisfy his needs and because one signing is intrinsically linked to the next. Meaning that there is a bigger picture than signing individual players. However, this assumes the managers bigger picture is always right.

    Just get the right players for your team. It doesnt matter how you get them, when you get them, or whether they were first or last choice. All that matters is whether they work.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #545  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmann View Post
    I think within whatever limitations FSG has put on him - he is maybe not able to do so. Edwards seems to be a joke at getting deals done as well so probably part of the story as well.

    Wenger protected the club and the owners for years when they didn't have funds and everybody blamed Wenger. Klopp seems to be doing the same, Its widely reported he wanted massive transfer window this summer and strengthen the first team with quality.

    FSG are looking for profits and not trophies - even you can't debate that.
    More trophies means more profit though. Before you say no it doesn't look at Man Utd and how their value has increased over the years mainly due to them 'winning'
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #546  
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by lonewolf kal View Post
    yeah, think we can. this myth keeps coming up. so where are all the profits, by all means show proof. shouldn't be hard to find as they have been in business for more than a decade.

    Ohhhh dear---the value of their asset(LFC) is the profit. They haven't taken anything out of the club. Its the same when you buy a share, a house etc - you get your profit when you sell it off. And so far LFC have gone from 300 mill to 1 Billion? Massive! and well done FSG from a financial point of view.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #547  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    I dont know what you are arguing over then? my original point was FSG need Coutinho.
    And yet you could not show any evidence that this is actually the case. In fact, you confirmed, in multiple ways, that FSG are convinced (demonstrated by their actual behaviour) that on-field success is not the primary driver in the club's value.

    I think if Coutinho ends up staying, it will be primarily because FSG will not want to antagonise Klopp rather than some vague notion that they "...need Coutinho".
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #548  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Tmann View Post
    Ohhhh dear---the value of their asset(LFC) is the profit. They haven't taken anything out of the club. Its the same when you buy a share, a house etc - you get your profit when you sell it off. And so far LFC have gone from 300 mill to 1 Billion? Massive! and well done FSG from a financial point of view.
    Thats not massive, not when they are 400m deep since acquisition. If we had won the league and been a regular in the CL during FSG's time we could have been worth double what we are worth right now.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #549  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    6,784
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    I was referring to Klopp with the delusion comment.
    Sorry, my bad
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #550  
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallazar View Post
    The worrying prospect for me is going out of CL in August. Well, I know we should be beating our opponents as they are not strong and have also lost two of their best players but we are taking huge risks here.

    If we also want to keep our best players, we should be making this squad stronger and remain in the CL.
    I dont think that it is by choice that we have not strengthened. Its just that substantial bids were not accepted for Keita and yes, someone messed up badly with the pursuit of VDD. You can question whether alternatives ie: second and third choice players should have been bought but we have to trust our manager and if he wants Keita, funds are available to buy him and Leipzig wont sell - there's not a lot anyone can do about it without being completely stupid.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #551  
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    6,784
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    What else can he say, he wanted a minimum of a top CM and a top CD, he got neither. He can't now say that what we have is not good enough, he can't say we need better in defence and midfield (even though by going for top class players, this is clearly the case). JK has to put a positive spin on it, he has no other choice, he can't destroy the confidence of the players he has to work with every day.

    If he really believes that nothing more is needed, then why the hell have we been trying to spend over 100 mil on 2 players for the whole window if they are not needed?
    He is stubborn. He should be out there signing alternatives to Van Dijk and Keita. But he's too stubborn to do that; it's really that simple. In no logical world would FSG refuse to bid 30m for someone like Seri, a few weeks after bidding 70m on Keita. But Klopp doesn't want that so what do you want FSG to do? Sign players behind his back?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #552  
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    Thats not massive, not when they are 400m deep since acquisition. If we had won the league and been a regular in the CL during FSG's time we could have been worth double what we are worth right now.

    Please tell me your financial secrets if you consider going from 300 mill to 1 bn over 7 years not being massive!! I want in!! DJ for instance has "only" doubled over the same period.......
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #553  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    Thats not massive, not when they are 400m deep since acquisition. If we had won the league and been a regular in the CL during FSG's time we could have been worth double what we are worth right now.
    I explained this to you previously. Achieving that would have required taking on a lot more risk through spending massive amounts in fees and wages to recruit the right managers and players. This would mean a completely different risk/reward profile.

    As it is, with modest outlays and risk, they are enjoying a fine appreciation in the value of their asset. FSG's strategy so far has been intrinsically conservative. They mainly want to ride the PL broadcast rights gravy train and maximise commercial revenues. On-field success, as you yourself admitted, has been zero.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #554  
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by EmreSam View Post
    He is stubborn. He should be out there signing alternatives to Van Dijk and Keita. But he's too stubborn to do that; it's really that simple. In no logical world would FSG refuse to bid 30m for someone like Seri, a few weeks after bidding 70m on Keita. But Klopp doesn't want that so what do you want FSG to do? Sign players behind his back?
    He is putting his job on the line. He saw how we performed at the back last season and now he says we are good! What has changed? I just hope Klopp has a plan that we don't know about.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #555  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    And yet you could not show any evidence that this is actually the case. In fact, you confirmed, in multiple ways, that FSG are convinced (demonstrated by their actual behaviour) that on-field success is not the primary driver in the club's value.

    I think if Coutinho ends up staying, it will be primarily because FSG will not want to antagonise Klopp rather than some vague notion that they "...need Coutinho".
    Keeping your best players means you have more chance of success, its that simple. What evidence do you want?? you want me to show you a team thats sold their best players then gone on to have huge success? well I cant because it doesn't happen. The clubs with the best player simply win. The club who win are worth more than the clubs who dont win, simple.

    On field success has implication with off field success. IF we would have had on field success under FSG reign so far LFC might be worth 2b not the current 1b
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #556  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,348
    Quote Originally Posted by EmreSam View Post
    He is stubborn. He should be out there signing alternatives to Van Dijk and Keita. But he's too stubborn to do that; it's really that simple. In no logical world would FSG refuse to bid 30m for someone like Seri, a few weeks after bidding 70m on Keita. But Klopp doesn't want that so what do you want FSG to do? Sign players behind his back?
    I would say a little odd rather than stubborn. To openly go after 2 players all window, then say we don't need anyone is a little worrying. We either needed them or not, which is it?

    I mean, what must FSG be thinking? Are these players needed or not? Do we need to spend this money or not? Mixed signals here. What is JK suddenly decides he has identified another target, will the money be forthcoming? Or will FSG say 'you said we don't need anyone else? All a little strange.
    Last edited by reallash; 7-8-17 at 17:08.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #557  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    I explained this to you previously. Achieving that would have required taking on a lot more risk through spending massive amounts in fees and wages to recruit the right managers and players. This would mean a completely different risk/reward profile.

    As it is, with modest outlays and risk, they are enjoying a fine appreciation in the value of their asset. FSG's strategy so far has been intrinsically conservative. They mainly want to ride the PL broadcast rights gravy train and maximise commercial revenues. On-field success, as you yourself admitted, has been zero.
    But by doing that they wont maximise the potential of their investment. Why do Man Utd spend **** loads on new players every summer if they could just do the same? Because when you are successful on the pitch, off the field success will follow! We currently get what 20m pa from Standard charted, Utd get 50m from Chevolet, why? because they have way more brand exposure than us due to their on field success over the years.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #558  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    But by doing that they wont maximise the potential of their investment. Why do Man Utd spend **** loads on new players every summer if they could just do the same? Because when you are successful on the pitch, off the field success will follow! We currently get what 20m pa from Standard charted, Utd get 50m from Chevolet, why? because they have way more brand exposure than us due to their on field success over the years.
    I am sorry, you simply do not seem to be intelligent enough to understand a simple concept: risk is proportional to expected reward. From our starting position, FSG would have had to take massive risks (and spend massive amounts) to even catch up, let alone consistently beat the likes of United, City, Chelsea, even Arsenal. They have shown NO inclination to assume those risks and, therefore, logic implies, they do not expect these comical valuations you keep talking about. Their primary focus has been on off-field, commercial activities and revenues. This is confirmed by the fact that, even now, 7 years after they bought the club and having finally hired Klopp, they are simply too uninterested to make sure the support structure for a world-class manager is also world-class. They have an impressive record of botching appointments of key personnel, especially the ones related to the sporting activities.

    To summarise: FSG are focused on maximising the club's value WITHOUT incurring the kind of risk which MIGHT lead to 2 billion pound valuations. They have taken modest risk and thus are more than satisfied with valuations in the region of 1 billion.

    Hopefully, we do not have to discuss this again as it is quite tiresome.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #559  
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    27,100
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    I am sorry, you simply do not seem to be intelligent enough to understand a simple concept: risk is proportional to expected reward. From our starting position, FSG would have had to take massive risks (and spend massive amounts) to even catch up, let alone consistently beat the likes of United, City, Chelsea, even Arsenal. They have shown NO inclination to assume those risks and, therefore, logic implies, they do not expect these comical valuations you keep talking about. Their primary focus has been on off-field, commercial activities and revenues. This is confirmed by the fact that, even now, 7 years after they bought the club and having finally hired Klopp, they are simply too uninterested to make sure the support structure for a world-class manager is also world-class. They have an impressive record of botching appointments of key personnel, especially the ones related to the sporting activities.

    To summarise: FSG are focused on maximising the club's value WITHOUT incurring the kind of risk which MIGHT lead to 2 billion pound valuations. They have taken modest risk and thus are more than satisfied with valuations in the region of 1 billion.

    Hopefully, we do not have to discuss this again as it is quite tiresome.
    Mate, are you Greek?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #560  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullenator View Post
    Mate, are you Greek?
    Yep
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #561  
    robbieflowerpot is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    19,073
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    Yep
    You been up all night on standby in case someone asks that question?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #562  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by robbieflowerpot View Post
    You been up all night on standby in case someone asks that question?
    It's a very important question
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #563  
    lonewolf kal is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,726
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    I am sorry, you simply do not seem to be intelligent enough to understand a simple concept: risk is proportional to expected reward. From our starting position, FSG would have had to take massive risks (and spend massive amounts) to even catch up, let alone consistently beat the likes of United, City, Chelsea, even Arsenal. They have shown NO inclination to assume those risks and, therefore, logic implies, they do not expect these comical valuations you keep talking about. Their primary focus has been on off-field, commercial activities and revenues. This is confirmed by the fact that, even now, 7 years after they bought the club and having finally hired Klopp, they are simply too uninterested to make sure the support structure for a world-class manager is also world-class. They have an impressive record of botching appointments of key personnel, especially the ones related to the sporting activities.

    To summarise: FSG are focused on maximising the club's value WITHOUT incurring the kind of risk which MIGHT lead to 2 billion pound valuations. They have taken modest risk and thus are more than satisfied with valuations in the region of 1 billion.

    Hopefully, we do not have to discuss this again as it is quite tiresome.
    for some reason you always have to take a dig at someones aptitude and attempt to belittle them before coming out with total waffle. there is no need for it.

    as you like simple concepts, lets carry on.

    red: it would have been a massive risk for anyone to take over a badly run company, losing money hand over fist, and in debt. to just throw even more money into it just in an attempt to compete with the clubs above us..

    next as mentioned above. already behind, badly run, out of date, and in debt/losing money and you think its logical for them to just throw more money at it and have the gall to call it risk reward.. a club tried that trick, it was called leeds - what happened when thier "high risk" venture failed?


    and then your summary. you even say it bold. i''ll highlight it for you. now, forgive me for being stupid, but you actually want the owners to risk the club on a gamble that might, or might not pay off.

    seriously, would you really risk the future of the club just so you can have a bit of glory today instead of tomorrow.. seems quite selfish to me.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #564  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by lonewolf kal View Post
    for some reason you always have to take a dig at someones aptitude and attempt to belittle them before coming out with total waffle. there is no need for it.

    as you like simple concepts, lets carry on.

    red: it would have been a massive risk for anyone to take over a badly run company, losing money hand over fist, and in debt. to just throw even more money into it just in an attempt to compete with the clubs above us..

    next as mentioned above. already behind, badly run, out of date, and in debt/losing money and you think its logical for them to just throw more money at it and have the gall to call it risk reward.. a club tried that trick, it was called leeds - what happened when thier "high risk" venture failed?


    and then your summary. you even say it bold. i''ll highlight it for you. now, forgive me for being stupid, but you actually want the owners to risk the club on a gamble that might, or might not pay off.

    seriously, would you really risk the future of the club just so you can have a bit of glory today instead of tomorrow.. seems quite selfish to me.
    Well hello chatbot
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #565  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    I am sorry, you simply do not seem to be intelligent enough to understand a simple concept: risk is proportional to expected reward. From our starting position, FSG would have had to take massive risks (and spend massive amounts) to even catch up, let alone consistently beat the likes of United, City, Chelsea, even Arsenal. They have shown NO inclination to assume those risks and, therefore, logic implies, they do not expect these comical valuations you keep talking about. Their primary focus has been on off-field, commercial activities and revenues. This is confirmed by the fact that, even now, 7 years after they bought the club and having finally hired Klopp, they are simply too uninterested to make sure the support structure for a world-class manager is also world-class. They have an impressive record of botching appointments of key personnel, especially the ones related to the sporting activities.

    To summarise: FSG are focused on maximising the club's value WITHOUT incurring the kind of risk which MIGHT lead to 2 billion pound valuations. They have taken modest risk and thus are more than satisfied with valuations in the region of 1 billion.

    Hopefully, we do not have to discuss this again as it is quite tiresome.
    Completely disagree. Since buying the club for c.300m FSG are a further c.400m (including stadium loan) that's only c.100m shy of the Glazers outlay at Man Utd of which you said was high risk venture. If anything Man Utd was more of a cert for the Glazers because their brand was way bigger than LFCs. The Glazers moved the risk onto the club itself like H+G did with us, FSG are shouldering all the risk here as they haven't used the club as collateral for loans.

    IF FSG had got the right personal in, not sold the likes of Suarez and made a few more clever buys out of the 450m gross spend since acquisition we 'could' have won the league, a few cups and been a top 4 regular by now. Then our sponsors increases and so on meaning our value would be higher. Maybe not 2b but way more than the current 1b, that's without putting any more money in than they already have done!

    700m outlay for a 1b valuation today is good but not great and FSG expected more. It's their own fault it is not more though and I think they know that.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #566  
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    27,100
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    Yep
    I live up your way, malaka.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #567  
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    976
    Quote Originally Posted by neongreekred View Post
    I am sorry, you simply do not seem to be intelligent enough to understand a simple concept: risk is proportional to expected reward. From our starting position, FSG would have had to take massive risks (and spend massive amounts) to even catch up, let alone consistently beat the likes of United, City, Chelsea, even Arsenal. They have shown NO inclination to assume those risks and, therefore, logic implies, they do not expect these comical valuations you keep talking about. Their primary focus has been on off-field, commercial activities and revenues. This is confirmed by the fact that, even now, 7 years after they bought the club and having finally hired Klopp, they are simply too uninterested to make sure the support structure for a world-class manager is also world-class. They have an impressive record of botching appointments of key personnel, especially the ones related to the sporting activities.

    To summarise: FSG are focused on maximising the club's value WITHOUT incurring the kind of risk which MIGHT lead to 2 billion pound valuations. They have taken modest risk and thus are more than satisfied with valuations in the region of 1 billion.

    Hopefully, we do not have to discuss this again as it is quite tiresome.
    Hopefully they will **** off quite soon so we indeed don't have to.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #568  
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullenator View Post
    I live up your way, malaka.
    Trying to make friends I see
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #569  
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    976
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    Completely disagree. Since buying the club for c.300m FSG are a further c.400m (including stadium loan) that's only c.100m shy of the Glazers outlay at Man Utd of which you said was high risk venture. If anything Man Utd was more of a cert for the Glazers because their brand was way bigger than LFCs. The Glazers moved the risk onto the club itself like H+G did with us, FSG are shouldering all the risk here as they haven't used the club as collateral for loans.

    IF FSG had got the right personal in, not sold the likes of Suarez and made a few more clever buys out of the 450m gross spend since acquisition we 'could' have won the league, a few cups and been a top 4 regular by now. Then our sponsors increases and so on meaning our value would be higher. Maybe not 2b but way more than the current 1b, that's without putting any more money in than they already have done!

    700m outlay for a 1b valuation today is good but not great and FSG expected more. It's their own fault it is not more though and I think they know that.
    Ah yes but the 400m outlay is all repayable loans isn't it so it remains an asset. If any of it pays interest (which I just don't know) then that is an appreciating asset. So strictly you don't subtract the 400 as FSG should have secured it and will get it back. Return is therefore 1bn-300m and any other outlay not repayable. Tasty. Time for them to **** off and let the 'big money' get involved and do all the things that should be done (proper personnel, etc.).
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #570  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman View Post
    Ah yes but the 400m outlay is all repayable loans isn't it so it remains an asset. If any of it pays interest (which I just don't know) then that is an appreciating asset. So strictly you don't subtract the 400 as FSG should have secured it and will get it back. Return is therefore 1bn-300m and any other outlay not repayable. Tasty. Time for them to **** off and let the 'big money' get involved and do all the things that should be done (proper personnel, etc.).
    No, only 110m of it is a loan to FSG with a small 1.24% interest added which is what FSG pay to the bank for the loan, basically if it was interest free FSG would lose money on it but they got the loan against their assets and loaned it to us. If LFC had got that loan direct we would have been looking at rates of c.5% and also secured against the club possibly. The other money was used to pay off the overdraft each year which was used to buy players each year and then they created new shares and bought them with the debt, just like what Abramovich done with his Chelsea debt.

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport...d-not-12711821
    Reply With Quote   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
  •