I have read several articles today that claim to highlights strengths that LFC have developed in recent seasons in areas where it is suggested that we have fallen back - and none of this is to do with the playing side. There is a lot of truth in the fact that all the teams around us have caught up financially, but that has more to do with money from Sky and BT Sport rather than these teams managing an improvement in their financial models. The main difference that can be highlighted for this period is what the team around us have done with their new-found wealth. All over the PL you can see the evidence - completely new stadiums, new training facilities and investment in personnel and sporting science professionals. LFC have their brand new stand and, I understand 'cos I haven't been, a general re-vamp and improvement in stadium facilities in general. By contrast, look at OT - we've been swithering and dithering about building back over the railway lines for decades now and the standard of supporter's facilities is going downhill rapidly. It seems to me that the owners of other clubs have been more astute, more pro-active in their spending than us. While Woodward seems content to rack up tacky sponsorship deals all week, other teams have been investing in improved facilities and in key staff. In our case I mean a Director of Football to take the responsibility for transfers and contracts out of Woodward's hands. Our main problem, remains, the Glazers. Their sole interest in ownership of our club is to make money, they have no interest in football, the history of the club, nothing - just the balance sheets at the end of the month meeting. FSG, by complete contrast, have sp;ort in their DNA, at every level of their management structure. They own several sporting interests in the US (Tampa Bay doesn't count for the Glazers - that was bought simply for the leisure and retail opportunities on site) FSG also have ownership of sports television, interests in Nascar and other minor league sports. To me that is the key difference that we will never overcome - someone who understands sport as well as FSG will always have the better idea of where the money has to be spent in order to produce the best results.
You make a good and valid point about the difference in sporting terms between the Glazers and FSG, but tbh FSG stumbled into LFC and never had a clue about football, in fact they brought in the yank who was their "soccer expert" in Boston. They said from the off they weren't "sugar daddies" and that we'd have to live within our means, they kept their word tbf, they have also been astute on the commercial side with sponsors and partners, the new stand rakes in more matchday revenue and they're going to rebuild the Anfield Rd Stand to maximize revenue. You're also right about TV revenue and how it's given the lesser clubs more power in the transfer market and in paying better wages to attract better players, West Ham got a brand new ground for basically nothing and the TV money, Deloitte now have them in the top 20 richest clubs in the world. As for Utd, it seems former players, pundits and fans agree that it's not just Mourinho and the players to blame it's Woodward and the Glazers, even G Neville said Utd need to start from scratch not just with a new manager, Mourinho was always going to fail imho, because I can't see the Glazers giving him unlimited funds like City give Guardiola, they're more interested in the commercial side and taking a bigger dividend . As a Liverpool supporter I hope Mourinho stays at Utd but in reality he'll be sacked very soon.
Then you're probably even happier today. Is that time of the year, I bet Liverpool will give in on the league title. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
