Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Prince Knut said:
Fsst. They're not as bad as the Glazers or Tod Bhuely (sp). They're not as bad as H&G either. Er... that's it. "It could be worse".

Don't worry though - there'll be another 'war chest' next summer according to their placelings in the media. Or maybe the summer after that... :emoticon-0138-think
Click to expand...

why do you need a war chest? We spend money every year. How much do you want us to spend? We spend what we earn. We have done since day 1. That’s how football should be and how we operate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zanjinho, mighty_stevie_g, Solid Air 2 and 1 other person
SIR_KENNY_KLOPP_KING said:
Anyone in their early 20’s won’t recall the mess we were in before FSG. They just see all of the other big clubs throwing money about every window, while we do so only occasionally. It probably is time for FSG to sell imo, they’ve made their money.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure about that
Our owners appear to be fairly responsible

who do we want coming in ?
so difficult in this day and age

do we want a sugar daddy or responsible?
The buisiness stuff all goes over my head tbph but it’s been the best period of being a Liverpool fan in all the time I have supported them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solid Air 2, saintanton and Germlands Nozzer
InBiscanWeTrust said:
why do you need a war chest? We spend money every year. How much do you want us to spend? We spend what we earn. We have done since day 1. That’s how football should be and how we operate.
Click to expand...
I agree.
I'd rather see effective measures implemented to make sure all clubs were run responsibly than have us join the profligate ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zanjinho
Sauerkraut Inia said:
I am not so sure about that
Our owners appear to be fairly responsible

who do we want coming in ?
so difficult in this day and age

do we want a sugar daddy or responsible?
The buisiness stuff all goes over my head tbph but it’s been the best period of being a Liverpool fan in all the time I have supported them
Click to expand...

I think as a club that's temporarily plateaued in revenue at about 600mil (no cl) we really need to see that we are quite rich in global terms but there's responsible and there is over cautious.

If I were fsg I would be all over the council to lay hands on all the derelict sites round the club rather than letting them go to others.

I would be absolutely demanding public transport and I would be looking to at minimum reproof the skd stand to fill in another few rows on top and all the two empty upper areas (without impacting houses as they committed to people on that)

I would want them to widen the kopp and add another 10 rows as well . The church and pubs but in particular the 10 derelict houses owned by the bakery thst won't be develops should be taken on.

If it requires shifting the road then shift it.

They have no ambition to go past 62k and it's already a disaster to get away from games so public transport/rail/tams are a must to go higher.

Fsg should be stronger and see those sites all around as huge opportunities to build on.

Anyway after that a club with our revenues already should be having a top squad so they need to keep pushing the boundaries withing the 70% of revenues rule by uefa.

We've a good squad but we simply cannot afford to have people sit on their hands and let what happened with henderson and fabinho happen again.

I'd rather they even let players go early than let them age out so they need to be more aggressive.

Vvd will be OK for 2 years mind. Not sure about salah. Buying chiesa was a complete waste imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
moreinjuredthanowen said:
I think as a club that's temporarily plateaued in revenue at about 600mil (no cl) we really need to see that we are quite rich in global terms but there's responsible and there is over cautious.

If I were fsg I would be all over the council to lay hands on all the derelict sites round the club rather than letting them go to others.

I would be absolutely demanding public transport and I would be looking to at minimum reproof the skd stand to fill in another few rows on top and all the two empty upper areas (without impacting houses as they committed to people on that)

I would want them to widen the kopp and add another 10 rows as well . The church and pubs but in particular the 10 derelict houses owned by the bakery thst won't be develops should be taken on.

If it requires shifting the road then shift it.

They have no ambition to go past 62k and it's already a disaster to get away from games so public transport/rail/tams are a must to go higher.

Fsg should be stronger and see those sites all around as huge opportunities to build on.

Anyway after that a club with our revenues already should be having a top squad so they need to keep pushing the boundaries withing the 70% of revenues rule by uefa.

We've a good squad but we simply cannot afford to have people sit on their hands and let what happened with henderson and fabinho happen again.

I'd rather they even let players go early than let them age out so they need to be more aggressive.

Vvd will be OK for 2 years mind. Not sure about salah. Buying chiesa was a complete waste imo.
Click to expand...

There's still a railway line half a mile away. And the situation behind the Kop should not be a problem in the real world - how much income does the club generate for this city? How much more could easily be recouped? Abd as for Kemlyn Rd - they could build those people a semi-detached estate if they wanted, they're just being ****ing difficult.

Even then though, the money for all that should come from a partnership between our parent company and the council. The club need not pay anything for infrastructure under FFP/PSR, it just shouldn't be on our books.
 
Prince Knut said:
There's still a railway line half a mile away. And the situation behind the Kop should not be a problem in the real world - how much income does the club generate for this city? How much more could easily be recouped? Abd as for Kemlyn Rd - they could build those people a semi-detached estate if they wanted, they're just being ****ing difficult.

Even then though, the money for all that should come from a partnership between our parent company and the council. The club need not pay anything for infrastructure under FFP/PSR, it just shouldn't be on our books.
Click to expand...
of course it should be on our books in fact i assume it would be a breach of accounting rules if it wasn't .For PSR any infrastructure costs are added on as are community and womens team costs so if those costs were £40m and the profit / loss accounts show a loss of £30m for PSR the club made a £10m profit
 
Solid Air 2 said:
of course it should be on our books in fact i assume it would be a breach of accounting rules if it wasn't .For PSR any infrastructure costs are added on as are community and womens team costs so if those costs were £40m and the profit / loss accounts show a loss of £30m for PSR the club made a £10m profit
Click to expand...

Okay, wrongly worded - it shouldn't be on our PSR books, for want of a better phrase.
 
Prince Knut said:
There's still a railway line half a mile away. And the situation behind the Kop should not be a problem in the real world - how much income does the club generate for this city? How much more could easily be recouped? Abd as for Kemlyn Rd - they could build those people a semi-detached estate if they wanted, they're just being ****ing difficult.

Even then though, the money for all that should come from a partnership between our parent company and the council. The club need not pay anything for infrastructure under FFP/PSR, it just shouldn't be on our books.
Click to expand...

After the main stand fsg promised those on the skd side they would not be coming after them. Fsg only want a cheap solution and the skd is anything but.

You'd get at least another 4k in the upper tier with a rebooting but you'd be left with a lower tier only midgets are comfortable in.

You could widen thr kept with a reroof on the same land and you could in theory overhang the road even more.

It's cost a bomb for both so a complete rebuild is the only solution to get up to 80k but they'll never do it cos it'd cost 500mil
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivan Dobsky
moreinjuredthanowen said:
After the main stand fsg promised those on the skd side they would not be coming after them. Fsg only want a cheap solution and the skd is anything but.

You'd get at least another 4k in the upper tier with a rebooting but you'd be left with a lower tier only midgets are comfortable in.

You could widen thr kept with a reroof on the same land and you could in theory overhang the road even more.

It's cost a bomb for both so a complete rebuild is the only solution to get up to 80k but they'll never do it cos it'd cost 500mil
Click to expand...
at that cost rightly so
 
  • Like
Reactions: mighty_stevie_g
moreinjuredthanowen said:
I think as a club that's temporarily plateaued in revenue at about 600mil (no cl) we really need to see that we are quite rich in global terms but there's responsible and there is over cautious.

If I were fsg I would be all over the council to lay hands on all the derelict sites round the club rather than letting them go to others.

I would be absolutely demanding public transport and I would be looking to at minimum reproof the skd stand to fill in another few rows on top and all the two empty upper areas (without impacting houses as they committed to people on that)

I would want them to widen the kopp and add another 10 rows as well . The church and pubs but in particular the 10 derelict houses owned by the bakery thst won't be develops should be taken on.

If it requires shifting the road then shift it.

They have no ambition to go past 62k and it's already a disaster to get away from games so public transport/rail/tams are a must to go higher.

Fsg should be stronger and see those sites all around as huge opportunities to build on.

Anyway after that a club with our revenues already should be having a top squad so they need to keep pushing the boundaries withing the 70% of revenues rule by uefa.

We've a good squad but we simply cannot afford to have people sit on their hands and let what happened with henderson and fabinho happen again.

I'd rather they even let players go early than let them age out so they need to be more aggressive.

Vvd will be OK for 2 years mind. Not sure about salah. Buying chiesa was a complete waste imo.
Click to expand...
I think that’s all fair enough

I just think we are in a period where our owners are being responsible

we won’t win any awards for that but it is nice to see

I am as happy as I can be as a fan
We are challenging for things
That’s cool <cheers>
 
  • Like
Reactions: mighty_stevie_g
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back