See I think this is part of the issue, FSG get away with under investment because there not H&G. H&G had such a scarring effect that anybody would be better. The fans are like a battered wife who think the new boyfriend is better because he doesn't use his belt to hit her. Like mito said. They could have paid for the anfield expansion and the training ground, they would have increased the value of the asset they got for a song, but no, they've milked the club, just because there not taking millions out a year, but looking to take it in a lump sum with a sale, doesn't mean they arnt milking it. It's not a choice between **** owners, fsg or sugar daddy.
they are basically milking it on a global scale. the glaziers are myopic enough to take 30mil a year out in dividend. fsg are cleaning up commercials round the world. LeBron would never ever have done anything with nest 250mil is what imo fsg have taken out of our club to enable its own sale. 250mil less for proper recruitment structure to invest. not only that but they wouldn't even get the job done properly at the time when cpo was done. they whole stadium should have been moved by 20m to enable centenary and kop stand rebuilds. they are so cheap they won't take any reduction in capacity to quickly build
Nothing to do with 'not being H&G'. Never wanted a sugar daddy and the club generates enough to run itself, it's the oil clubs distorting views (& trying to keep up), not the H&G experience. Fans want different things. Jimmy would sell his soul for us to be Man City, I wouldn't.
Again, it's not one or the other. Why people assume its either oil money or **** all is beyond me. We've won pot after pot, increased sponsorship, capacity, revenue, there's money all over the club, yet we get Arthur on loan as a panic buy. We are consistently outspent by the majority of the league, they don't have sugar daddies, they just arnt as tight as a ducks arse. We are the only club who give two ****s about ffp, harp on relentlessly about it. Oh and the net spend trophy. Looking forward to the parade showing that off.
Football can be seen as a synecdoche of a wider societal trend - the demand for more money and ever-increasing productivity is unsustainable and history shows it can only end in disaster. How big a disaster is down to how we act now. If we have any view beyond short-term gratification, instead of calling for more and more money to be pumped in, we should be crying out for more effective measures to curb the absurd inflationary phase that football has been going through for far too long.
this season 137m euros Spent (on 4 players) 80m Euros recieved last season 87m euro spent (on 2 players) 29.5m received Season before 87m spent (3 players) 17m received Net spend of 184m over last 3 seasons. Not the most and not the least. But the club is spending money. I know if you go back few more years prob a very diff story, but when klopp has wanted money they’ve supplied it to him. This chat about us being right and fsg giving no extra money and we have to buy to sell isn’t entirely true. I think last few years they’ve realised they need to invest more and not rely on sales. However, we aren’t going to spend 100m net each year, especially if we aren’t moving people on We also have a lot of high earners (some will leave in summer) and we also correctly report on wages and agency fees which all feed into ffp unlike some clubs…
Between the new training facilities and the stadium upgrades, a lot of money (hundreds of millions of squid) has been spent on infrastructure. It's not that they're syphoning money off (necessarily)...which should help us in the long term... We're spending a butt load more on salaries than the majority of the premier league (which subtracts from what we can spend on transfers). And with all that said, we don't know that there ISN'T money to spend. Some managers buy half a dozen players to see who will work out and move four of them on after a season or two. Klopp has very few targets and only wants those players. Who is to say we haven't made £100mill bid for Bellingham but Dortmund wanted £150mill? Or how many big behind-the-scenes transfers didn't work out? If we don't invest in on-field talent this summer, I will worry, right now, I'm not concerned with how FSG have handled the club. What people seem to want is for us to be in massive debt again, which is fine for today but not good for tomorrow.
Before FSG arrive it was 20mil a year max transfer spend Under fsg with treble the revenue its now ~50million transfer spend Clearly most of the revenue does on massive wage bill as it covers the entire world of LFC (other clubs carve off chunks of wages and pay in holding company btw) OR stadium or training ground costs. Maybe someday (5 or 10 years time) we will have no repayments and suddenly be up to 80mil a year net spend. But i doubt it. the reality here is Klopp signed Gakpo, nunez, diaz, jota over 4 windows. 1 per window forcing in the attack. He's made a pigs ear of the midfield as a result. he's retained henderson and milner and not shifted ox and ketia and he's backed jones and elliott as CMs. anyone can forgive fabinho falling off a cliff but when you've your one buy as a 30 year old injury prone player called thaigo over the past windows for CM and retain 4 players who just are never up to it and thorw these issues on top you'll struggle. we are struggling as our plan a is the only plan we have and without all 11 players up for it and doing the job it falls apart.
I went out of my way to watch this game. I truly hope that was our lowest ebb for this season and forthcoming ones
So owner who puts money into the club is a sugar daddy? They could have invested in the structure of the club, without effecting ffp or the transfer budget. They've not done. When they sell for a fortune, wander off into the sunset with a big wad of cash, I wonder if it will hit hone then exactly where all the money went. The glazers are obvious with it, but fsg are milking us just as much.
This board is one of the only places I see net spend and ffp mentioned regularly. We are one of the biggest, most profitable clubs in the world, we've recently had massive success to back that up and the increased revenue that comes with it. But there's no money? There's no point going off the last 3 years when we've been chronically underfunded since fsg took over.
No I'd like owners who where happy to put there hand in their own pocket to improve their own asset. FSG have tried to **** the fans over time and time again, only with a massive backlash did they relent. They've not put a penny of their own money into the club. Like I say there not h&g so they're OK.
There is money. We’ve spent money over last 3 years? The wider point was that we’ve brought players in and spent money. But we haven’t sold anyone really. A few players here and there to add a bit of money but by not moving players on (for one reason or the other) if you just kept buying you’d end up in a situation like chelsea with 40 first team players trying to squeeze into a 25 man squad. Net spend is important to the health of the football club. Im sure if you compiled a list of money spent over last 10 years we’d be one of the highest behind the usual suspects. But remember we’ve also only had 1 manager for last 7 years. That makes a huge difference in transfer spend. High manager turnover means each manager goes out and spends X amount buying their own players. They get sacked, new one comes in and says I need X to transform this team. Weve had Klopp who has added slowly and the odd player each season so not to cause too much change. Everyone knows what we need and I think like milk says, if the owners don’t put hand in pocket to land 2 big midfield targets this summer then I’ll worry. But to say they’ve not spent any more isnt true. It’s just they’ve spent much more wisely
So spend their own personal wealth to improve the players on the field. That's a sugar daddy owner scenario. Even if it's not to the extreme of Chelsea or City. All, but the absolute wealthiest individuals can't afford to spend hundreds of millions each year of their own money. Even if they can do it once, it's not sustainable. For most people, the club simply has to be self-sufficient.
Net spend means absolutely **** all. Unless your another in looking forward to the parade for the net spend trophy. How much money the club generates should be used for how much we can afford, we generate a stupid amount but spend a fraction. Why havnt we sold anyone? Because the hangers on are worth noubt, but fsg are still trying to squeak out an extra few million. They'd rather keep a crock on the payroll absolute ****ing useless then go out and buy a replacement. This comes to a head this summer when we've got multiple contracts up all at the same time, we could of quietly let ox, keita et Al move for a couple of million or even free to give us some space, but no, we demand over the odds for ****e, then wonder why our only fit 11 are constantly ****ed. If they've spent wisely explain why our midfield consists of players who look like there running in cement? The 2 best midfielders we've got are kids? Why our attack is only now starting to cone together mid-season. Why yet again we are swapping matip and gomez about hoping one if them will be less ****e than the other. How you consider that wise is beyond me. It's been coming for years as well, people who are defending fsg have been saying its been coming, with nothing done. Yet they still somehow think there good for the club. Every bit of success we've had is down to klopp, nothing to do either fsg, more despite them.
Sweet jesus, Sorry I'll say it again, they could have funded the stadium and training complex themselves. That money could then have been used by the team. Doesn't count towards ffp, it increases the value of their asset, they havnt spanked millions on any players. Just improved the structure. I'm sorry if this seems like a Ln outlandish request for owners to actually give something themselves rather than just looking to take. You laugh at the glazers and utd, fsg are doing exactly the same, just in a more polite way.
It's very different. Glazers are paying themselves millions out of Uniteds funds and lumped their own personal debt to buy the club on the club. FSG are just trying to make the club self-sufficient.
The club is self sufficient, it's more than self sufficient, it's paying for itself to expand. But when they decide to finally cash in, do you think lfc will be given any of the money from the sale? Do you think the club will benefit? No they will have bought it for 300mil and sold it for billions without spending a penny. All that profit for doing very little. How good they are, hero's in many peoples eyes.
Honestly, I don't care how much or how little they make selling the club, anymore than I care if Joe Smith made w profit when he sold his car... but your first line is something I do care about. We're a stronger financial entity now and set up better to succeed and in a stronger current position no matter who they sell us to.
