There's two sides to this. Do Liverpool want to succeessful long term or do they want to be like Manchester City taking in spending bucket loads of cash and making losses of £197 million? I think its the first one. Okay you cannot field an entire team with youth teamers, the closest anyone got to that was Liverpool in the 70s, Arsenal in the 80s and Manchester United in the 90s, but there is no harm in chucking a few in. Brendan Rodgers has a particular style and he felt someone like Adam Morgan would be better suited learning his trade as the 3rd striker than a £35 million England international. In someways he's right. I've nothing against Andy Carroll, and I do believe when used properly, he'll be a wrecking machine. However all managers have different ideas.
Honestly... would be quite nice... at least for a season or two to have some sugar daddy financing the club- buying us every player we wanted and getting back to winning the league again. But in a real world- I realise that isn't going to happen- I want to be able to tell my grand childrens about how Man Utd was liquidated, Wigan inherited their stadium and how Liverpool went on to win title #30 that same day- one of the few clubs still in good financial health. I don't think Carroll should have been a third-choice striker... but I understand, under Rodders he was.
And I repeat ... yes really. For those who think I am on a wind up - I have severe doubts about our team compared to last season ... you only have to look at our start including today ... we can't keep a clean sheet and can't score more than 1 goal a game... not a good combination... we also have a manager that I think is going to be like ramos...only we won't win a cup. I hope I'm wrong but there you go. My question was and is genuine...everyone who has responded has said no youre not in financial trouble and has given decent explainations that have helped me as an outsider to understand what's going on.
Sorry, I on other forums got laughed at by Spurs fans for suggesting that Spurs made a massive blunder in appointing Villas Boas. As bad as Redknapp was, he is tactically useless, he's a fantastic man manager. Villas Boas is tactically inept and the majority of players that have played under him, have admitted they can't stand the sight of him. Rafa Benitez and he's admitted this, is a cold fish, his philosophy is to keep players at arms length. However, Rafa is a tactical genius. In terms of tactics and organisation, he's been Liverpool best manager in the last 22 years. He was unfortunately ham-strung by Hicks and Gillett. Had he spent less time fighting and more time coaching, then I'm sure he would have eventually succeeded. He did all the fighting for the good of the club though. Villas Boas will be out on his ear by the turn of the year. He's an utter clown.
Dembelee plays a blinder v united at OT last week...and we have in the bench this week! I think that this along with the seeming sending Michael Dawson to "coventry" means my view of him being a liability is strengthening but like I said ... I hope I'm wrong
I'd have money on AVB being the first to go if I was a betting man. Hearing that today he made massive tactical mistakes.
Back to FSG and their approach to LFC and its development. Investment both on and off the pitch is not a one-off activity. A sugar daddy who dips into his pocket for a couple of years and then sits back is a recipe for disaster. FSC have decided that we will be treated as a Profit Centre. Hence any investment has to come from firstly home produced profit and secondly from other sources that have the approval of FSC - but not necessarily from their pockets. Contrary to some speculation above this protects us from interference with our development plans due to the demands from other elements of their portfolio (eg Red Sox). John Henry made his position very clear on the new stadium or refurbishment of Anfield. Whatever eventually transpires it has to be economically viable in LFC terms and not in FSG terms. Hence, a naming partner would need to take the responsibility for a large part of a new build and a refurbishment could only be undertaken according to what LFC could afford. In purely financial terms FSC are steering a steady course in an ocean of economic turbulence. What we are not being is milked like some of our opponents. Nor are we being sheltered from economic reality. Now when this direction is applied to player/squad development the lessons have to be hard learnt. This is where we presently are as fans.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...and as for global brand...hmmm I think you're still looking at things through 1980s goggles...see this link http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/brandfinance_football_brands_2012.pdf Arsenal are ranked as a stronger global brand than Liverpool...in the modern globalised world very few fans from Asia/Africa etc attach much value to what happened in the 1980s. It's the Premier League which has made English football global and it's Premier League history which has the biggest impact on global brand status...so no surprise why Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United all come ahead of Liverpool. Your statement is not based on fact and is plainly biased.
Typical to resort to mocking...a sign that the point has been conceded. As for Walmart....Alonso sold, Mascherano sold, Meireles sold, Torres sold etc etc = all players who were doing well for you and would walk into the current side (Torres in his Liverpool form). The only reason why we have had more players sold to petrol money is because we generally finish above you and our team is generally better than yours and as a result our players are generally more in demand. Point being is if your tean performed as well in the league you probably would have lost just as many players.
Completely disagree. Only Torres and Macherano left for more money and to do better. Alonso was driven out of the club by Benitez and Meireles was never getting picked by Dalglish who thought Henderson would be better.
Gooner, grow up sonny. If you can't interpret commercial statistics then don't quote them. Even the argument forwarded in your penultimate statement is so full of holes that it becomes plainly stupid. Now just go and research which football match draws the highest worldwide tv audience and then you may be able to understand just a little bit more.
Worldwide this, Global that.. They are no more 'Fans' of Premier League Clubs than I am a 'Fan' of Breaking Bad, it is just a televisual experience. Melves.
You forgot to stroke your cat and finish that nonsense with a whoooohahahahaha! Do you imagine this as a giant chessboard and we're now at check? Arsenal are participators, spectators. You simply take part but don't forget your ribbon:
Grow up? You just stated that Arsenal are not a global brand whilst Liverpool are...I presented hard evidence which makes the first part of your statement utterly ridiculous...a refusal to accept this point indicates that maybe its not me who needs to grow up. As for who is the bigger brand...agreed there are many factors that come in play...we just happened to do better than you on the parameters used by Brand Finance (who are the pre-eminent global brand consultancy) And that TV audience you talk about just might have something to do with all those glory hunting Man Puke fans in Asia who watch that fixture. Completely agree with David Schofields sentiment though.
I don't think Liverpool are in financial trouble was certainly are adopting a tough stance with negotiating clubs now
By the way before anyone runs away with the idea that I'm completely biased...I freely and happily admit that Liverpool are easily the more successful club...that is without doubt. I do wish the B Rogers project works out as I genuinely have respect for this great club..the Premier League needs a strong and competitive Liverpool.
Please show me where I stated that Arsenal are not a global brand? Now show me exactly what HARD EVIDENCE you are referring to. If you are rely upon the report of Brand Finance then you really should learn the difference between promotional material and qualified research. As for them being pre-eminent then I would beg to differ and would prefer to use the research of Forbes or Bloomberg let alone the research done by Morgan Stanley, Deloitte and Ernst & Young.
No chess boards here....just live in the real world. I actually agree with your participator comment...we don't seem to want to compete...hard to argue with that considering the transfer activity. However, the sad and troubling fact for you is that your boys are breaking the bank to get their hands on that same ribbon (or even an inferior one)
