Which team has the 'promise of success' if they are not challenging? This sentence makes little sense to me. And every top club's revenues are impacted by finishing near the top and going far in the Champions League, so yeah, getting a top manager to help you get there is part of the job. Giving him a fair share of that revenue growth to continue improving his team is also a reasonable way to spend that extra money - for all the obsession about transfer fees, those are impacted by a multitude of factors and, unless you are spending in the billions like Man City, hardly guarantee you much success.
In the 10 years since FSG have been at the club, revenues have increased by 165% and the wage bill by 169%. The club generates more money which in turn is spent in the team - it is a positive cycle and one thing doesn't happen without the other.
And of course we have the revenues to attract players, now - as much as you try to make it sound as if increasing revenues was a ridiculously simple thing to do, our recent history shows it isn't, not quite. If we hadn't increased revenues in the years before 2016 by some 60%, we probably wouldn't even be able to attract a manager like Klopp
I find this an odd thing to say. Klopp operated under pretty strict financial constraints at Dortmund and was still able to win back to back German titles and reach the CL final. He was a good fit for the club by his own admission.
I would be interested to know what the figures for revenue growth were in the years before Klopp took charge compared with the rest of the top six earners and, moreover, what proportion of the increase is accounted for by increases in broadcast revenues?
It is no co-incidence that our revenues increased considerably after Klopp took charge as, with the success of the team on the pitch instigated by his management, we saw a proportionate increase in the numbers of people prepared to part with their cash. It is for the same reason our wage bill increased. More success on the pitch = higher wages spent on bonuses and more lucrative contracts for current players and new signings. Would we expect FSG
not to invest increased revenues in higher wages for players the manager has helped turn into world class exponents of the game?
If you are a reasonably sensible business person and you take on the ownership of the most successful football club in English football history you pretty well ought to be capable of taking advantage of the opportunities that it presents. Should we expect to be any
less successful in purely revenue terms than would otherwise have been the case? Lower than how many other clubs in the Deloitte rankings? The fact that H&G and before them, Moores, failed to do so through their catastrophic mismanagement is not strong evidence in favour of FSG being overly strong backers of the team in financial terms. I would say they have been reasonably prudent and a damn sight better than the previous owners but this is sort of what you expect from any owner worth their salt.
I think they are very lucky to have Klopp and would ask how many other managers would have achieved the same level of success under the same set of circumstances? They would almost all of them have needed a bigger budget.
You said earlier you don't think it's all about one man but this kind of circular thought suggests that maybe you do, in all honesty. Of course a successful team is then going to make more, as all clubs use incentivised contracts these days. It also shows the club's willingness to spend to keep their best players, and that is indeed backing the manager and allowing him to continue his legacy.
It's not all about one man and it's important as others have said to give credit to the kit man, the technical people behind the scenes, Edwards, the scouts and to a degree the owners for not bankrupting the club and sensibly doing what previous owners neglected to do, but the main reason for our success is the manager. His success has created a halo effect that lends itself to an overly positive view of FSG.
Logged
