I may have misread the reports, but I thought they were suggesting £800m for the entire club (which would be too cheap, imho). ... anyway, if we're to believe what we're being told then the chinese ain't trying to do a deal so no need for any of us to worry.
One way or another we need investment or the club to be sold to become a force again. The present owners have done a lot of good for the club without doubt but they are business people and profit not winning is the bottom line. I am fearful they will be happy with Liverpool being a nice little earner for them without taking the steps necessary like paying a player 180k-250k a week in wages to make us serious about winning. The net spend this summer proves to me what I had suspected all along.
Some people here either didn't understand how that might work, or didn't want to accept that it might be a genuine risk, when I raised the same possibility in the past... will be interested to see what response you get this time around. Personally, I think they are happy to be earning nicely and growthing their wealth as things stand, if they get lucky and get the odd cup or get into the CL from time to time, then it's a financial bonus for them, much in the same way as they will be able to sell on a good player for a high price occassionally (ala Suarez or Sterling). Thats why I also maintain that while they tell us they club is not for sale, they ultimately have a price they will sell at - even if they don't disclose this publically (and in fairness, thats sensible from a business perspective). It's all business. I think it would be nice to have owners who genuinely supported the club and think that might help influence their decision on investing in top players, because their dream would be like ours, to see LFC pick up a PL win etc. As I recall, FSG pretty much admited that they knew little or nothing about football when they bought LFC, so hard to subsequently convince me that they are genuine fans - they just play along a little, to keep up appearances while monitoring their wealth grow.
People might not agree with me but having owners who only come over once or twice a year to see their team play doesn't fill me with any confidence whatsoever that theiy're in it for the long haul. I believe they'd sell in the morning once they got a price that would net them a nice tidy profit.
I recall in the first few months after they took over, a period of 7 years was mentioned before they would likely sell and make their money. This October it will be 6 years and there is absolutely no doubt the club is on a solid financial footing. A few things that could point to the seven years being accurate - Ian Ayre leaving this season - New Stand completed this season - Profit made in the transfer market meaning squad is very lean - Top class manager signed up for 6 years - New pricing structure would have been implemented if it had not been for those pesky fans revolting!!! Could all be pie in the sky however if LFC qualified for Champions League next season then FSG would make some profit if they sold after 7 years. One thing that can't be debated is that on the field bar one season with a world class player, the league positions have been consistently poor. Comes back to them staying to their model of paying slightly inflated fees for players none of the top four wanted however getting them on reasonable wages. It gives the impression there is a money being spent, however compared to rivals, it's nowhere near what is required. I'd put Wijnaldum, Mane in that category this summer. I don't recall one massive signing all the way through the ownership. Suarez was actually overshadowed by the Carroll fee, however shrewdly they were both paid for by Torres sale. Probably the most exciting signing for me was Balotelli, however we know how that ended up. I am not anti FSG and not into conspiracy theories, however to me it looks like their long strategy could pay off for them through very shrewd business decisions.
In terms of supporting the belief that they are not really into the game and are not really LFC fans, I would agree. However, in terms of the commercial side of things, it could be argued that they leave their CEO & Board to run the club - which in the business world is the way things really should be done, tbf. Personally, on the basis that they are not real fans, I'm happy to see them keep their distance as each time they come over, they just play along with the roles they think the fans want to see them in, with their red ties and spin to the media etc.
It's also worth noting that David Moore's was a massive fan and presided over 2 decades of commercial neglect and then sold us to Hicks and Gillett,the two main reasons we've become an also ran.
Absolutely. But I'd hope we are focused on getting things right for the future... if we want to point to owners that support their clubs, or those that ultimately failed them, we could be here a long time (Abramovich springs to mind as an owner who genuinely seems to support his team for example).
Well i doubt he had much affection for them before he bought them and I think it's more of a status thing but yeah he loves to see them win.
It's as plain as the nose on Zlatans face that fsg are only in this for the profit,this year's summer net spend,and lowering of wages yet again shows me they have no interest in winning,just plod along hope that one of our cheap ass players can be sold at a nice profit and repeat again next year,as someone else said if we get cl or win a cup it's a bit more change in they're pockets
How much did the wages go down by this summer? I find in bizarre the assumptions that people can reach our owners of 5 years based on a summer with a new manager famed for great acquisitions and a belief in coaching. How many times have FSG broke our transfer record?
And when was the last time we cut our wage bill because most of the figures I've seen show it going up every year even after some very high earners moved on.I wouldn't be suprised if it goes down this summer although I wouldn't be certain it will but when you move on 15 or 16 players without losing one who you want to keep and the manager gets the business done he wants to then I'm failing to see the negative side of saving money(unless that money doesn't stay in the club,which it will).3 more transfer windows in the next 18 months lads,that money isn't going anywhere.
That raises a moot point, when we consider such things as how the cost of players has risen over the past few years and looks likely to continue to rise ove the next few. Also, needs dictate what should or should not be spent... those with greatest needs are compelled to pay more to bring in top talent for various reasons. Easy explanation for that one mate, the transfer committee got a payrise each year in acknowledgement of the great job they were doing The true rate of inflation in football has driven up players wages, transfer fees etc. I think that we all have to keep that in mind everytime any of us talk about things like transfer fees or wages (no matter what point we are trying to make). I suppose those of us who feel the owners agenda includes cutting high paid staff for business reasons, need to start using the phrase "to make a negative contribution towards the net annual payroll" rather than just saying "to reduce the payroll" each time we see a well paid player shipped out
I really don't get this fuss about spending and having to buy players. I trust the manager to look at the options available and decide if they are worth buying or not and go from there. The alternative is like some of the previous summers where we bought a rake of players and ended up moving them on for sod all because they were useless. There's been a decent clear out this summer of lads you wouldn't miss, the only one I was annoyed to see go was Joe Allen. I really don't get this hysteria of wanting to buy for the sake of it.
You can use whatever language you want mate but it won't change the fact that moving out a player the manager doesn't want is 100% the right thing to do,if it's a player on big money it makes it even more imperative we do. For all the paranoia around our transfer business,I'm pretty sure nobody thinks Klopp is being forced to move players on he wants to keep.
You seem to be missing a key point there fella, it's not a case of buying players just for the sake of it - it's a case of buying players that would make our squad better. Massive difference I think your confusing two different points there... There is the point about getting rid of players that Klopp does not want and on that, I'd expect we all agree. There is the point about reinvesting the sale proceeds in better players (be it a direct replacement for the player sold, or another player for a different position)