FSG's Most Important Summer?

Any business that has the right priorities will ''have a lot more money to spend on wages and the means to improve and retain the status of the asset''.
I adapted your quote in the respect that your assertion in the context of players is essentially identical to a means of improving and retaining the status of the asset.

Surely this is a priority of any entrepreneur in any time context if the asset is to succeed over an extended period.

Then again, as an entrepreneur sometimes you don't have the same resources and capabilities as your competitor, so in fact to build your resources you need lots of time and patient. There are multiple ways for an asset to be efficient, including improving the existing asset.

To explain why I said that this summer is important for Rodgers and FSG is because they have to learn from their mistakes and put it right before it's too late. Let's say FSG, hypothetically, change their ways to more risk and back the manager and transfer committee, but the transfer committee/Rodgers end up wasting the money, will people still blame FSG for our failures?

Then again, as an entrepreneur sometimes you don't have the same resources and capabilities as your competitor, so in fact to build your resources you need lots of time and patient. There are multiple ways for an asset to be efficient, including improving the existing asset.

To explain why I said that this summer is important for Rodgers and FSG is because they have to learn from their mistakes and put it right before it's too late. Let's say FSG, hypothetically, change their ways to more risk and back the manager and transfer committee, but the transfer committee/Rodgers end up wasting the money, will people still blame FSG for our failures?

Comparisons with other clubs is irrelevant.
LFC has it's own model, it is a viable business entity.
Run in an efficient manner it has the capability of returning any monies invested as a profit.
A lack of faith in the model will be of detriment to the company and to a lesser extent the investing body itself.
The above is true for any holding without exception.
JWH would attempt to convince LFC is an extraordinary business venture and subject to mysterious market forces.

lets not forget they are finally expanding and modernising Anfield to increase revenu which in turn will increase our spending power to match FFP rules.

Comparisons with other clubs is irrelevant.
LFC has it's own model, it is a viable business entity.
Run in an efficient manner it has the capability of returning any monies invested as a profit.
A lack of faith in the model will be of detriment to the company and to a lesser extent the investing body itself.
The above is true for any holding without exception.
JWH would attempt to convince LFC is an extraordinary business venture and subject to mysterious market forces.

LFC has it's own model does it? what "model" is that that makes it so very different from any other club?

If it returns profits when run in an "efficient manner" why did Moores bail out saying he couldn't afford to keep pumping money in?
In fact, saying that it returns a profit if run in an efficient manner would seem to be exactly the thing you spend so much time moaning about, when the reality is that you never tire of whining about how the owners never put their own money in, so which is it?

When has JWH asserted that LFC is subject to "mysterious market forces"? and what are these "mysterious market forces"?

I look forwards to a reply long on verbosity and short on substance in your usual manner.

LFC has it's own model does it? what "model" is that that makes it so very different from any other club?

LFC as opposed to other clubs you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire - that model is the one spoken of.

If it returns profits when run in an "efficient manner" why did Moores bail out saying he couldn't afford to keep pumping money in?

LFC is an asset, that definition describes an entity that will operate at a profit.
LFC ceased to be an asset when Moores, your point of reference, sold out to the swindlers from the US of A.
 

In fact, saying that it returns a profit if run in an efficient manner would seem to be exactly the thing you spend so much time moaning about, when the reality is that you never tire of whining about how the owners never put their own money in, so which is it?

What exactly is wrong in expecting the owner of a company to show confidence in said company and put some money behind it?
Why do you make personal comment and attempt to skew the subject matter from the team's indifferent footballing fortunes to the financial scheme of things, which are by way the vastly improved from the near bankrupt company JWH & Co inherited. 

JWH & Co must regard LFC as a totally different proposition to any other asset in that he has stated he will not back the company with his own money, which part of that statement do you have trouble with ??

FSG's MOST IMPORTANT SUMMER?

The thread title does not inspire confidence in JWH & Co, it does suggest a final opportunity to stop bullshitting about with the finances and get their head down with the footie.

LFC as opposed to other clubs you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire - that model is the one spoken of.

No, you said LFC has it's "own model" inferring that it has it's own way of doing business that is different from that of other clubs, so come on, enlighten us all.

LFC is an asset, that definition describes an entity that will operate at a profit.
LFC ceased to be an asset when Moores, your point of reference, sold out to the swindlers from the US of A.

An "asset" is not just something that operates at a profit.
 1.
a useful and desirable thing or quality:
Organizational ability is an asset.
2.
a single item of ownership having exchange value.
3.
assets.

    items of ownership convertible into cash; total resources of a person or business, as cash, notes and accounts receivable, securities, inventories, goodwill, fixtures, machinery, or real estate (opposed to liabilities ).
    Accounting. the items detailed on a balance sheet, especially in relation to liabilities and capital.
    all property available for the payment of debts, especially of a bankrupt or insolvent firm or person.
    Law. property in the hands of an heir, executor, or administrator, that is sufficient to pay the debts or legacies of a deceased person.

So, as shown you are completely wrong, yet again.

What exactly is wrong in expecting the owner of a company to show confidence in said company and put some money behind it?
Why do you make personal comment and attempt to skew the subject matter from the team's indifferent footballing fortunes to the financial scheme of things, which are by way the vastly improved from the near bankrupt company JWH & Co inherited.

JWH & Co must regard LFC as a totally different proposition to any other asset in that he has stated he will not back the company with his own money, which part of that statement do you have trouble with ??

When has he not shown confidence?
He gave KK a huge amount of money which was pissed away, with you pulling your usual trick of trying to blame commoli for everything, when KK himself said that the transfers were down to him.

Then in your second paragraph you completely reverse what you said earlier in stating that LFC is no longer an asset after Moores sold it.

So, it ceased to be an asset on one hand (according to you) and now you want to completely change that and call it an asset again.
So from this we can assume that you are either talking out of your arse, or you don't know what an asset actually is.

According to you, Moores sold an asset which then became not an asset when h&g bought it, but then changed back to an asset when FSG came on the scene, then at the same time you say that it was a viable asset that could stand on its own, but then say that FSG should be pumping their own money in (which they have in the form of interest free loans).

It's all completely contradictory, makes no sense and is really rather silly.

So wearisome, really couldn't be arsed with the hollow self promoting bullshit and the personal comment.
You certainly got too much time on your hands lad.
Those points have been addressed previously, with the exception of the fresh assumptions it is a complete waste of effort replying to the duplicated horseshit.
 If your arrogance wasn't faintly amusing you'd be on ignore.

LFC as opposed to other clubs you wouldn't piss on if they were on fire - that model is the one spoken of.

LFC is an asset, that definition describes an entity that will operate at a profit.
LFC ceased to be an asset when Moores, your point of reference, sold out to the swindlers from the US of A.
 
What exactly is wrong in expecting the owner of a company to show confidence in said company and put some money behind it?
Why do you make personal comment and attempt to skew the subject matter from the team's indifferent footballing fortunes to the financial scheme of things, which are by way the vastly improved from the near bankrupt company JWH & Co inherited. 

JWH & Co must regard LFC as a totally different proposition to any other asset in that he has stated he will not back the company with his own money, which part of that statement do you have trouble with ??

You know the definition of an idiot is someone who doesn't grasp something time and again, so ......deep breath....

Owners cannot just put their own money in its called FFP and you cannot seem to grasp this no matter how many times people tell you and point you to the relevant accounts policies etc.

We are spending the maximum we can and first time in years we have made a small profit because it's all reinvested into the club.

Even City had to get investment however dodgy allowing them to spend, so to increase we need more commercial deals not the owners cash, what part of this can you not understand!!!!!

The interest free loan for the stadium doesn't come under FFP as does youth policies which they have invested in also, so do you want LFC to break rules and get fined?

I think it's fairly clear, and I think most people would accept, that if the very richest clubs are in for a player it's simply not going to happen that we can outbid them. If for example we fancy Nathanial Clyne as a player but Man City fancy him too, unless he's amongst that rare breed of footballers who covets a regular start above an extra 30K a week we ain't going to get him. That's even if of course we can match their bid, which if they really want him of course we can't as they'll just bid something ridiculous. I think most fans accept that, and I'd be very surprised if anybody but the most dyed in the wool red would blame FSG for that state of affairs. If we truly want to compete at that level, we need an oil oligarch or a gangster or both to take us over, I want neither.

So clearly we have to box very clever if we are going to compete with such teams, which is why I personally accept this "moneyball" approach to some extent, simply because we HAVE to try something. To me though, saving on transfer fees by scattergunning cheaper players is all very well, but by then trying to save on wages by paying below the odds once they've succeeded as well is like trying to have two bites of the cherry. Not only is it the wrong move as far as success for the club is concerned as we sell our best players, I think it's counter productive to recruiting bright new things as well. Imagine for instance if we DID give Sterling 150K per week, DID give Coutinho 130K per week, DID give Emre Can 100K per week. Three players would be on big money, but the combined fee for all three is about 19 million quid, so we're all good. Pivotally though, we'd be saying to any prospective new signings "not only do you have a good chance of getting a regular game, but if you shine we will be willing to pay the huge money you crave". Imagine the message THAT would send out, THEN we'd have a chance of nicking players who other teams were in for, given that we were offering progression both professionally AND financially.

Allied to that, we have to single-mindedly try and get players who we think would be an improvement, and NOT worry about sell ons. Not all the time, but sometimes. A good example is Petr Cech. Most people I suspect would have him down as being a better goalkeeper than Simon Mignolet (although it's worth appreciating he's been seen behind a FAR better defence), and most would say he'd improve us. He will cost 7-10 million tops, BUT he will want to earn proper money for his final serious contract, AND he'll want three years at least. If we offer both we might just get him, particularly as only Arsenal amongst the bigger English clubs really need a goalie. Will we though? My guess is no, and it's this dogmatic adherence to the policy rather than the acceptance that SOME players fall outside its remit which I think undoes us at times. Before anyone says it Rickie Lambert ISN'T an example of this in action, he would be on peanuts compared to what Cech will want.

Ultimately FSG's task as far as I personally am concerned is to convince me that they are at least as serious about properly competing on the pitch as they are about turning a profit. I accept they have to have some sort of "alternative plan" as they aren't the richest owners, but nonetheless they are some way away from convincing me of that so far.

You know the definition of an idiot is someone who doesn't grasp something time and again, so ......deep breath....

Owners cannot just put their own money in its called FFP and you cannot seem to grasp this no matter how many times people tell you and point you to the relevant accounts policies etc.

We are spending the maximum we can and first time in years we have made a small profit because it's all reinvested into the club.

Even City had to get investment however dodgy allowing them to spend, so to increase we need more commercial deals not the owners cash, what part of this can you not understand!!!!!

The interest free loan for the stadium doesn't come under FFP as does youth policies which they have invested in also, so do you want LFC to break rules and get fined?

You're by no means on your own mate, but when you open up a post with a line like this I think you diminish your point. Clearly you and Stuey disagree with each other (and no doubt he's thrown an insult or two as well), but these kind of exchanges aren't doing the forum any favours at the moment. You can't control what other people do, but you can control what you do yourself. Just try and cut down on the personal stuff and make your point, it's a forum and people are allowed to disagree with you.

You're by no means on your own mate, but when you open up a post with a line like this I think you diminish your point. Clearly you and Stuey disagree with each other (and no doubt he's thrown an insult or two as well), but these kind of exchanges aren't doing the forum any favours at the moment. You can't control what other people do, but you can control what you do yourself. Just try and cut down on the personal stuff and make your point, it's a forum and people are allowed to disagree with you.

When someone continually tries to overpower a forum with " the owners need to spend spend spend " when it's completely obvious the club is spending the maximum possible it gets very tiresome. Now if you say as you did that the owners need to spend more wisely that's fair comment.

When someone continually tries to overpower a forum with " the owners need to spend spend spend " when it's completely obvious the club is spending the maximum possible it gets very tiresome. Now if you say as you did that the owners need to spend more wisely that's fair comment.

The owners need to spend more wisely.

So wearisome, really couldn't be arsed with the hollow self promoting bullshit and the personal comment.
You certainly got too much time on your hands lad.
Those points have been addressed previously, with the exception of the fresh assumptions it is a complete waste of effort replying to the duplicated horseshit.
 If your arrogance wasn't faintly amusing you'd be on ignore.

So, yet again you try to cover up the fact you talk in circles with absolutely no idea what you're on about with a post containing personal abuse.

Try and debate the points raised.
I know it's difficult for you, but try anyway instead of hiding behind bullshit posts that say nothing.

The owners need to spend more wisely.

The owners, the committee or the manager?

The owners, the committee or the manager?

Maybe all three?

Maybe all three?

Mistakes have been made by all three so I'd agree.

Mistakes have been made by all three so I'd agree.

Yes I think those of us who advocated Brendan being given more power would have to accept that on the occasions when the signings have clearly been "his", then they've hardly lit the place up. That doesn't mean we were wrong of course (perish the thought  ) but certainly who actually decides on who gets brought in at this point is the least of our worries. Who actually decides on who gets sold is IMHO our most pressing issue, as selling Sterling or at least failing to keep him would be a disaster. From there, looking at the policy itself and not applying it quite so rigidly is the way to go in my view.

Here's what I'd like to see...for just one summer I'd like to see the kind of players brought in that make us all freaking ecstatic.

As long as it's feasible under FFP, spend the money on established and proven stars. We can all debate what THAT means but wouldn't it be a much better debate to have than the ones we are currently on?

The scouting network are the guys who recommend players surely they as culpable as any . But saying that no manager/comittee should be giving the green light until he has seen the player LIVE also

Maybe all three?

That's how I see it.

Here's what I'd like to see...for just one summer I'd like to see the kind of players brought in that make us all freaking ecstatic.

As long as it's feasible under FFP, spend the money on established and proven stars. We can all debate what THAT means but wouldn't it be a much better debate to have than the ones we are currently on?

Lot of talk about FFP and whether we agree about it or not the fact of the matter is the owners are going to abide by it so that is that.

At some point we need to pay over the odds for a player and make a statement, because as I mentioned in another thread this club looks like some type of government work project.

Look at the last 3 years from the perspective of a player looking coming here.

Stadium:  On going project
Commercial:  On going project
Revenue: On going project
Footballing System: On going project
Players Transferring In: All projects in one way or another (young, misfits, past the prime)
Contracts: Performance Based

For a guy like Costa or Hazard we look like:




This club is not going to attract big players if we don't make some kind of statement..and if that takes overpaying for a guy like Yaya or Reus than so be it.

Until we do no big name is going to take this club seriously; no matter how much we pay.

Let's be clear, I like a lot of the players that we have gone out and bought....Sakho, Lallana, Marko, CAN.....

but I wouldn't mind if they added one or two really established players to that lineup.