I think the people moaning about FSG being 'in it for the money' and 'not investing their own cash' etc when it comes to transfers should think back a couple of years...
When H&G were in ownership, the vast majority of people would have been happy to have a new owner that just doesn't take money out of the club. Let the club work from its own operating profits etc. Obviously, most wanted to see stadium developments too though
Firstly an apology. Having re-read my last comment it sounds like a personal attack and it wasn't meant to come out that way - so sorry.
We do have to remember that we are owned by a commercial organisation and not by fans or by somebody who considers the club as their personal plaything. Hence all decisions, both on and off the pitch, will be made from a commercial standpoint. That can only be in the long term best interests of both the club and FSG.
John Henry is clearly stating that whilst he is well aware that there is value in building/refurbishing, the Opportunity Cost of so doing without support in the present climate is too high - and hence not in the clubs best long term interests. If that cost burden can be reduced by collaboration with a partner then the Cost/Benefit picture changes significantly. Perhaps even more importantly, he is pointing to LFC becoming a self funding organisation through its own efforts. That does not mean that FSG will not invest in LFC but it does mean that any investment in the club will be directed to one goal - making the club successful enough that it is not reliant upon FSG for the major part of its investment requirements. If FSG had taken-over any other form of company then you would expect them to adopt the very same principles.
Sure, I would like us to be able to play in a modern stadium (new or refurbished) but I don't want to see that at the expense of our being able to invest in both the team and our commercial activity. Being ancient, I can remember the link that appeared to develop between clubs building new stands and a decline in that clubs success. I don't want to see that happen to LFC.
Page wanted to know about the relationship between LFC and other FSG clubs/activities. I have to say that the direct relationship between the entities appears to be at arms length. There does not appear to be any X-funding (where profits from one are transferred to another). However, I do believe that we will see more integration in the coming years on commercial activities eg Warrior. It appears that FSG wishes to stand behind each of its entities as a guarantor. Hence, if one venture fails it does not bring down the rest like a pack of cards.
Now, as I understand it, FSG sees LFC as a major future profit centre. The bits are already in place and the decks have been cleared. We now need to prove via success on the pitch. The more success on the pitch, the more the income, the more we can invest. Though we can assume that money will be made available to Rodgers for new players.
People point to the greater income achieved by those with bigger stadiums and on an income basis that is unarguable. However, if the cost of achieving that £1 million per game is such that we cannot afford to by better players and thereby make ourselves more successful then I will forgo it. The more success that we have the higher the value of our naming rights and the closer a new stadium becomes.
still am in fairness
