Not many fans would back their own Club's owners for this accolade, especially the teams towards the top of the table. But who would you say has the best owners(s)? JW Henry came in and saved us from a visit by the administrators, but to many Liverpool fans this is not enough to avoid criticism due to their transfer policy, the sacking of Kenny, lack of movement on the stadium front and their lack of presence from America. Roman Abramovich has injected £100s of millions into Chelsea but his trigger happy finger has not always gone down well with Chelsea fans, especially with his most recent change of managers from a Club legend to a Club villain. Arsenalâs owners have been under scrutiny for a few seasons now, selling their best players and lack of ambition. Even the Glazers down the East Lancs road have had their problems with the red half of Manchester. Mike Ashley was once a hated figure at Newcastle, but he has turned things around despite smaller things such as changing the name of the Stadium. Can Man Cityâs owners be considered the best? They throw money at everything but are they really that involved? Have they damaged the Club long term?
Has to be City owners for the reason you just said: they throw tons of money and don't get involved. That is a managers dream. Imagine if Rafa had the City job with all the money and none of the backroom politics. They also, importantly, give their managers a chance. They gave Hughes (some) time, despite not being a manager of world class standard. They persist with Mancini, despite being way adrift. Can you imagine Mancini under performing under Chelsea like this and still being in the job?
This. Imo the best owners are the ones who give the manager time and space whilst also providing a reasonable amount of cash for the manager to spend as they see fit. City's owners are the best by a fair way as they splash the cash and don't get involved. They've also actually invested in the club's infrastructure and signed long term contracts for sponsorship which are way beyond what City would have earned without them. City would be ****ed if they left, but that is more to do with how far back City were before they bought the club. The only criticism is that they are maybe a bit too hands off in terms of delegating the management of the club to muppets like Garry Cook, although that situation seems to have improved now. After that, of the ones you've mentioned, I'd have to say the Glazers. For all the talk about the debt, they have increased our revenues by far more than the interest costs, and given SAF the money he has needed to deal with Chelsea and City's millions as well as letting him buy players he wants even when the financial value isn't there (Berb, Bebe, RVP etc). To have won what we have over the last nine years, with other clubs spending much more than us, is a testament to the benefits of stable and supportive ownership. Ashley has done alright recently, but his start was terrible. Four managers in the first two years plus relegation does not equal great ownership. They've improved in recent years, but that's more due to how well they invested the Carroll money rather than anything Ashley did. Arsenal's owners have been good for the club in terms of stability, with the financial constraints always likely to hinder them after the Emirates move. But in recent years I think they have hindered the club through the internal power struggles which may have influenced Wenger's ability to spend and offer their top players the wages needed to keep them. Tho' it's not entirely clear to what extent that's just down to Wenger's own stubbornness. Abramovich has splashed the cash, but the lack of stability has really hurt Chelsea. For all their talk of the trophies they have won since Abramovich took over, half of those were down to Mourinho, and the other half were largely won by players Mourinho brought in and nurtured. Still spending the money and getting them good players, but the performance of those players seems to be hindered by the fact that the manager who brought them in usually only lasts six months more. FSG have splashed the cash, but have thus far been too willing to interfere. Not only in terms of changing managers, but also restricting the actions of the managers, setting age restrictions on players, giving the manager stats against which to choose players etc. If they really want Liverpool to succeed they'll have to be more willing to take a punt on older players or players who don't tick all the statistical boxes.
The Glazers a close second to the Sheiks, for reasons given by Swarbs (though it's frightening to think what they'd have done with the £1bn they've taken out of United in interest payments). Financially I haven't got a problem with FSG, though there were others who would have saved us from Administration too, and I'm not in the least surprised that nothing has happened over Anfield/new ground, even though they were supposedly selected by RBS to get a cut price sale because of their plans and promises in this area.... Just cannot forgive them for leaving Kenny with his dick in his hand ovber the appeal about Suarez, Yes, the FA were in vindictive mode and would have made the ban worse, and yes we would have had to have gone to the CIS in Switzerland, and that would have made us pariahs with the FA and prem. BUT, it was a point of priciple - that kangaroo court had NO justification for anything other than a two/three game ban for what Suarez had actually admitted to, and there was no evidence whatsoever for anything else. But because the English media were hysterical and threatened to toxify the FSG brand worldwide they **** themselves and backed down. The worst of both worlds in the end, and they've shown their committment is nothing more than a holding company of asset-strippers with no long-term plan for the club's progress or values. H&G were full of ****, but I think they honestly beleived their own **** when they took over (and so did that **** Moores, as it coincided with @ £8m more for him personally than DIC's offer). They turned out to be cowboys - this posse is no better, everyone will see, and they've shown they have absolutely no intentions of aligning themselves with our values and ethos. Fan worldwide buyout scheme is the way forward.
You're normally quite fair in your response, Swarbs, but FSG have hardly "splashed the cash" with a total transfer outlay of 40million since they took over. Never mind what they've knocked off the wage bill during that period. They are financially astute and tight owners, who's big priority to be financially self sufficient which will prove important when (if) FFP come into play. I don't think our owners are the best though. They are too hands off, don't give support and advice enough but are quick to take action despite that and if anything, they expect serious improvements on the pitch without either investing money into making that improvement happen, or emplying the right people to set that long term goal. They still don't know enough about football to be effective managers. I wonder if people's perception of what makes a good owner will change when (if) FFP rules come into effect and owners cannot simply buy titles and trophies, or make up ludicrous sponsorship deals. I think some of the smaller clubs like Stoke, West Brom or Swansea have great owners. They're not stupid and buy willy nilly, they give their managers time and will back them appropriately for the size of the club to improve gradually.
think there's a bit of on the outside looking in here... who's making the calls is the question. is mancini or is it the cheif executive. the best owner is daniel levey and he's in total control and picking who'd bought and managing things well. he let redknapp's case go on and then when the result came out he got shut. he tied modric up and maximised retur nand does the same with bale. arsenal give wenger total control and any money he wants.. they must be considered nearly best too but should have done something about the guy by now. LFC owners are bottom half IMO... they flip flop and have not delivered much of anything bar midtable spending on wages and have allowed silly spending on mad players too boot then sack everyone. I agree about stoke and swansea... more great owners and thier clubs are only limited by revenue. If you gave swansea 70k fans and a big stadium they could go on to top the table.... if you give LFC that stadium they'll still be dreaming of 4th cos everything is amateur hour.
I thought it was closer to £75 million net after this Jan? The first season was a bit of a write off, what with them taking over after the winter window closed and Torres forcing a move in Jan, but they certainly backed Dalglish in summer 2011, and Rodgers has been given money to get Borini, Allen, Coutinho and Sturridge. Imo the main problem is not the money, but the fact that they seem to have all these criteria they want the manager to follow, but don't ever actually seem to talk to the managers about the club, other than to summon them to explain stuff. You get the feeling they thought managing a PL football club would be a lot easier than it actually is. Maybe the early success with the Red Sox went to their heads? That's a good call tbh, tho' their overall spending has seemed to drop off quite a bit in recent years. Levy does do a good job of keeping attention on himself, and so not putting his manager in a difficult position with regards to transfers, as Marwood did with Mancini last summer. Stoke, Swansea and West Brom have good owners in terms of their expectations - they are happy to spend a bit to keep the club stable in the PL without getting too ambitious. Too many clubs have owners who tried to push them high up the table only for it not to work out and the club to end up in a worse place than it was before.
Hmm, my normal site for figures didn't include this January - so 60mill outlay. Hardly something to write home about after 3 january and 2 summer windows. They are smart though, they're knocked off a vast amount from the wage bill at the same time, lowering the yearly losses. My gripe is that people claim we've spent stupid money, when we haven't. We've just spent money stupidly instead of smartly. That is down to the owners and the lack of a 'real football person' in the ownership team. I agree, I think they thought it would be alot easier than it us and I think their expectations restricted by criteria and either time or money is unrealistic. If they want slow, steady progress with young players being bought and brought through the academy, then suggesting we need to get 4th by year 2 or 3 is absurd. They're not the best - but definitely not the worst. Spurs are a good shout MITO, but unfortunately they're not quite ambitious enough to go that extra step and buy some top quality - much like Arsenal right now. Will be interesting to see the summer though; if Bale leaves and what they do with the money. Will Arsenal finally do anything or keep falling back. Are City/Chelsea going to be limited by FFP and fall behind United more. Can Liverpool do anything to catch up. How many Everton players will leave.
You lads really need to get a grip on reality when discussing the spend that FSG have authorised since taking over your club. They've actually spent £65m net in 3 years, which puts your annual spend at over £20M, which when you compare that with the average net spend p.a. over the last 5 years, would put you as the 3rd highest average spenders in the league - at the same run rate. As for the wage bill in 10-11, it went up £14m from the prior year & sat at £135m - the 4th highest in the league, their steps to reduce it were no doubt driven by fact that you failed to secure CL football.
We can still get 3rd, it's not mathematically impossible. Still time to make up for being the 3rd biggest spenders.
20million a season? Oh ****. We've got a sugar daddy here! That's nothing when clubs like ours are approaching 160+ turnover per year. Yes we spend alot, but it's not outside of what we can afford. Hence why net spend is important, despite what many claim. Even more important is net spend as a % of turnover or even more so, net spend compared to profits. Our problem in the last 5 years has not been how much we spend and 'the millions' flashed on trying to claw back into the top 4, or whatever else sensationalists claim, but rather on how poorly that money has been spent. Just because we're not a feeder club, doesn't mean we have no idea on reality. Also nice to see you're looking at 10-11 figures for a wage bill when we're in 2013
Or possibly that they'd sooner the extra revenue saved on wages can be added to the rest of the money in the kitty that they made through LFC sponsorship's and partnerships in the FSG bank account and available to prop up the Red Sox. Seriously though the thing i don't like about them is we're now part of a group of sports 'franchises' they own, i would have preferred owners with their sole focus on LFC tbh.
To be fair, over that period they would have the 4th highest spend behind City, Chelsea and Utd. Tho' of course that depends on whether you count Utd's left over cash from the Ronaldo money as being used to fund our spend in those windows. Again, in fairness a rise of £14m in 2011 wasn't as much as that of Utd, City and Chelsea - any effort to try and keep wages down over the last few years has always been hindered by the fact that even if you get rid of players, the ones you keep demand higher wages to keep them from going to City or Chelsea. Will be interesting to see what the figures are for last season, when Liverpool finally release them. But as you say it's hard for FSG to justify a top four wage bill when they aren't getting anything like top four performances and clubs like Spurs and Everton are getting better players and performances for lower wages.
That's pretty much the whole argument. The money has been there, and your owners are spending at a top four level despite your turnover being less than Utd, City, Chelsea and Arsenal, but the results aren't in line with the spending. That's cos your owners publish their accounts as late as possible - it'll be May before they even release the wage figures for the 11/12 season...
Still, the point of arguing that our wage bill is going up instead of down when looking at their first half year as owners is a little warped.
Well, it's been fun, absolutely useless but fun. Unless and until you agree to define the criteria by which the BEST owners will be identified you cannot achieve your objective. So, everybody is right and wrong at the same time - oh what Joy!!
You missed the point. You were attempting to contra their net spending against the wage bill reduction. I was merely pointing out, that for the 10-11 financial year the wage bill had increased by £14m over the previous year. So therefore their action of then looking to reduce that cost the following year, given that the CL target had been missed, was totally understandable.
Man City, Liverpool and Swansea all have very good owners for different reasons. Three very good teams too. Liverpool are going in the right direction, I'm impressed at the way you have been progressing. Man City have won the league and Swansea look nailed on to win the league cup. These 3 teams are where exciting times lie ahead
And you're making **** up. FSG bought Liverpool in the knowledge that FFP Was coming into play a few years afterwards. Their goal was always to cut down on spending, to increase revenue and to make the club sustainable. That was (and is) their priority and if anything, is the reason why alot of fans are cooling to them because they seem, in some cases, to place this goal ahead of on-the-field progress. Of course not having CL football hasn't helped the situation, but costs were going to be cut regardless. Your 10-11 figures also include absurd wages offered to players from the previous owners and transfers sanctioned before FSG took over. You need to look at far more than those to gain any kind of insight into wage reduction so, unless you're keeping abreast of the transfers of LCF as well as wages coming and going through some unique contact at board level, you can wait for the next figures to be released. A 6month insight into their ownership suggests nothing other than the **** which they had to sort out upon taking control.
