NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

You said there subs bench was equal to ours, it is not.

Whether I rate Fellaini or not which I don't or Sissoko for that matter they would still be above what we have on ours in terms of ability to change games.

With the bench Chelsea,Arsenal,City, Tottenham & Mancs have just shows how well we have performed with our lightweight squad & bench...

The owners have supported every manager, just like Mr Bumbles supported Oliver.

 Since 2012 every season has started with us week in one area or the other. You look at our team and see players starting for us who are not good enough. They would never start for any of our competitor and when you look at our competitors bench you see players who would be regulars for us.

Every January is the same we all know the side needs improvement, but nothing happens. We watch teams with a lot less money identify weakness and try to rectify it. You see teams like Stoke, Everton and Bournemouth finding money and buying player they believe will make a  difference.

Yet if the Red Sox needed a player JH and his cohorts would make sure they got someone. They would go out there way to ensure the baseball team has the best chances. In the same way John Moore used to go out of his way to make sure we had the player we needed.

The simple truth is the owners don’t care. We are nothing but an investment opportunity and there only real concern is the bank balance

Why do people use the terminology ''Bank Balance''? it doesn't make sense.

Their concern is the well being of the club on and off the pitch, and they've done very well off the pitch too. I've been reading lots of conspiracies on here for the past few years on how FSG takes out cash out of the club for their own pocket & how they only care about ''yes'' men (which was debunked with Rodgers & now Klopp). 

The facts are there, look at the income statement & balance sheet. It's easy to understand. There are no ''second books'' or ''money taken under the table'', it's not the 1920s. There are systems & regulations that does not allow these things to happen in first world countries and it's called governance.

Klopp has stated since the summer he has the money and the owners back him, even some journos like Pearce and Barrett stated that Klopp has the final say on all transfers and has the money at his disposal to sign the players he chooses. If the manager values a player at 15m but the player's club want 20m and Klopp doesn't agree, then it's the owners' fault?

First half of a season, not a sniff and no word on the owners and now because we are in a blip, some posters come in here and blame the owners for something they aren't responsible in. It's never a win-win situation for them.

Why compare the Redsox to Liverpool? you know the transfer system in baseball is different than in football. So your analogy is quite irrelevant. However, Let's say we take your argument true, didn't FSG sanction the purchase of Benteke, even though he was valued by Liverpool less than his release clause, which was 32.5m? Also, Southampton rejected our first bid for Lallana, but Rodgers was adamant to get his man and FSG allowed him to pay over the odds, didn't they not? This whole idea that ''the managers don't get the backing'' and they ''don't pay over the odds'' is quite silly and dishonest.  You can criticize the scouting department for buying overvalued decent players.

Where did I say we don't need more depth to the squad? Oh that's right, I didn't, so don't try twisting things.

Really. None of them on Arsenals bench impress me in the slightest, (the ones listed were Xhaka, Giroud, Ramsey,Oxlade Chamberlain) especially Xhaka who is a liability, as shown by the amount of red cards he gets.

Uniteds bench I would take Mata and that's it. (the ones listed were Rooney, Mata, Rashford, Mhiktarian and Fellaini).
For all the hype of Rashford, he's hardly done anything this season. Can't believe you even listed Fellaini too.

Spurs are hardly filled with a great bench and if you think Sissoko is an asset to have on the bench that we could do with then you are mistaken.

Are you being serious here or on a wind-up? Serious question.

Why do people use the terminology ''Bank Balance''? it doesn't make sense.

Their concern is the well being of the club on and off the pitch, and they've done very well off the pitch too. I've been reading lots of conspiracies on here for the past few years on how FSG takes out cash out of the club for their own pocket & how they only care about ''yes'' men (which was debunked with Rodgers & now Klopp). 

The facts are there, look at the income statement & balance sheet. It's easy to understand. There are no ''second books'' or ''money taken under the table'', it's not the 1920s. There are systems & regulations that does not allow these things to happen in first world countries and it's called governance.

Klopp has stated since the summer he has the money and the owners back him, even some journos like Pearce and Barrett stated that Klopp has the final say on all transfers and has the money at his disposal to sign the players he chooses. If the manager values a player at 15m but the player's club want 20m and Klopp doesn't agree, then it's the owners' fault?

First half of a season, not a sniff and no word on the owners and now because we are in a blip, some posters come in here and blame the owners for something they aren't responsible in. It's never a win-win situation for them.

Why compare the Redsox to Liverpool? you know the transfer system in baseball is different than in football. So your analogy is quite irrelevant. However, Let's say we take your argument true, didn't FSG sanction the purchase of Benteke, even though he was valued by Liverpool less than his release clause, which was 32.5m? Also, Southampton rejected our first bid for Lallana, but Rodgers was adamant to get his man and FSG allowed him to pay over the odds, didn't they not? This whole idea that ''the managers don't get the backing'' and they ''don't pay over the odds'' is quite silly and dishonest.  You can criticize the scouting department for buying overvalued decent players.

I think it's fairly clear the owners AREN'T taking money out from under the table via dividends etc. Equally, it's as plain as the nose on your face that they ARE fattening up the business and keeping the costs down relative to like for like clubs so that when they sell it, they get an absolutely massive dividend. I honestly can't believe anybody would dispute that.

Can I just remind ppl that we've only had one window under Klopp, I don't count winter windows cos we don't seem to do business then, anyhoo.... YNWA

You can "count" whatever you want Billy, that's your privilege. He's had three windows though, not one.

Why do people use the terminology ''Bank Balance''? it doesn't make sense.

Their concern is the well being of the club on and off the pitch, and they've done very well off the pitch too. I've been reading lots of conspiracies on here for the past few years on how FSG takes out cash out of the club for their own pocket & how they only care about ''yes'' men (which was debunked with Rodgers & now Klopp). 

The facts are there, look at the income statement & balance sheet. It's easy to understand. There are no ''second books'' or ''money taken under the table'', it's not the 1920s. There are systems & regulations that does not allow these things to happen in first world countries and it's called governance.

Klopp has stated since the summer he has the money and the owners back him, even some journos like Pearce and Barrett stated that Klopp has the final say on all transfers and has the money at his disposal to sign the players he chooses. If the manager values a player at 15m but the player's club want 20m and Klopp doesn't agree, then it's the owners' fault?

First half of a season, not a sniff and no word on the owners and now because we are in a blip, some posters come in here and blame the owners for something they aren't responsible in. It's never a win-win situation for them.

Why compare the Redsox to Liverpool? you know the transfer system in baseball is different than in football. So your analogy is quite irrelevant. However, Let's say we take your argument true, didn't FSG sanction the purchase of Benteke, even though he was valued by Liverpool less than his release clause, which was 32.5m? Also, Southampton rejected our first bid for Lallana, but Rodgers was adamant to get his man and FSG allowed him to pay over the odds, didn't they not? This whole idea that ''the managers don't get the backing'' and they ''don't pay over the odds'' is quite silly and dishonest.  You can criticize the scouting department for buying overvalued decent players.

1 League cup in 6 years..1 finish above 6th place..30mil/year average net spend..these are also facts.

I think it's fairly clear the owners AREN'T taking money out from under the table via dividends etc. Equally, it's as plain as the nose on your face that they ARE fattening up the business and keeping the costs down relative to like for like clubs so that when they sell it, they get an absolutely massive dividend. I honestly can't believe anybody would dispute that.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "fattening up the business", unless you're talking about all the new sponsors and off field activities, and besides that, when FSG sell, Mike Gordon is likely to become our "principle" owner due to his increased stake in FSG.

I'm also unsure how they are keeping costs down, when our wage bill is about the highest it's ever been.
It only looks smaller by one metric, which is as a percentage of turnover, which in turn speaks more of increased turnover than it does slashing wages.

Of course JH will make money when he sells either part or all of his stake in FSG, but we're actually a small part of his holdings, so I don't think he's relying on selling us for his pension.
In the meantime, keep an eye out for Gordon; I think he'll be our owner in the future, but as a majority stakeholder, rather than owning us outright.

Why do people use the terminology ''Bank Balance''? it doesn't make sense.

Their concern is the well being of the club on and off the pitch, and they've done very well off the pitch too. I've been reading lots of conspiracies on here for the past few years on how FSG takes out cash out of the club for their own pocket & how they only care about ''yes'' men (which was debunked with Rodgers & now Klopp). 

The facts are there, look at the income statement & balance sheet. It's easy to understand. There are no ''second books'' or ''money taken under the table'', it's not the 1920s. There are systems & regulations that does not allow these things to happen in first world countries and it's called governance.

Klopp has stated since the summer he has the money and the owners back him, even some journos like Pearce and Barrett stated that Klopp has the final say on all transfers and has the money at his disposal to sign the players he chooses. If the manager values a player at 15m but the player's club want 20m and Klopp doesn't agree, then it's the owners' fault?

First half of a season, not a sniff and no word on the owners and now because we are in a blip, some posters come in here and blame the owners for something they aren't responsible in. It's never a win-win situation for them.

Why compare the Redsox to Liverpool? you know the transfer system in baseball is different than in football. So your analogy is quite irrelevant. However, Let's say we take your argument true, didn't FSG sanction the purchase of Benteke, even though he was valued by Liverpool less than his release clause, which was 32.5m? Also, Southampton rejected our first bid for Lallana, but Rodgers was adamant to get his man and FSG allowed him to pay over the odds, didn't they not? This whole idea that ''the managers don't get the backing'' and they ''don't pay over the odds'' is quite silly and dishonest.  You can criticize the scouting department for buying overvalued decent players.

You and swab seem to be the only ones talking about conspiracies and money being taken out

 They have done well of the pitch. But so has every club around us. Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs have done just as well. Somehow they all seem to be able to do well of the pitch and still build squads who can compete. They also seem to be able to identify to class players and recruit them.

I will admit you can not compare the transfer systems of Football to Baseball. But I am not comparing the systems. I am comparing the owners of the Red Sox and the owners of Liverpool.
The owners of the Red Sox will do everything possible to ensure they team is the best possible team. The owners of Liverpool seem uninterested at best. At worst they don’t care.   

It is more than fair to compare how the owners represent there teams !

You and swab seem to be the only ones talking about conspiracies and money being taken out

 They have done well of the pitch. But so has every club around us. Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs have done just as well. Somehow they all seem to be able to do well of the pitch and still build squads who can compete. They also seem to be able to identify to class players and recruit them.

I will admit you can not compare the transfer systems of Football to Baseball. But I am not comparing the systems. I am comparing the owners of the Red Sox and the owners of Liverpool.
The owners of the Red Sox will do everything possible to ensure they team is the best possible team. The owners of Liverpool seem uninterested at best. At worst they don’t care.   

It is more than fair to compare how the owners represent there teams !

What?
Red Sox and LFC have the same owners.

What?
Red Sox and LFC have the same owners.

Please tell me this is your attempt at humour ?

As it would break my heart if you were being a condescending moron   

You and swab seem to be the only ones talking about conspiracies and money being taken out

 They have done well of the pitch. But so has every club around us. Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs have done just as well. Somehow they all seem to be able to do well of the pitch and still build squads who can compete. They also seem to be able to identify to class players and recruit them.

I will admit you can not compare the transfer systems of Football to Baseball. But I am not comparing the systems. I am comparing the owners of the Red Sox and the owners of Liverpool.
The owners of the Red Sox will do everything possible to ensure they team is the best possible team. The owners of Liverpool seem uninterested at best. At worst they don’t care.   

It is more than fair to compare how the owners represent there teams !

Please tell me this is your attempt at humour ?

As it would break my heart if you were being a condescending moron   

You're going to have to explain how the owners are different when they are the same owners.

Your words, not mine, saying the two clubs have different owners.
They don't.

You're going to have to explain how the owners are different when they are the same owners.

Your words, not mine, saying the two clubs have different owners.
They don't.

I do apologise swab

I took literal licence and wrongly assumed everyone on this thread would know both teams have the same owners

It must have been quite a shock when you googled the Red Sox and found out they have the same owners as us.

You're going to have to explain how the owners are different when they are the same owners.

Your words, not mine, saying the two clubs have different owners.
They don't.

Cmon Swabbo its clear what hes saying.

I know you get it as well your an intelligent poster.

I do apologise swab

I took literal licence and wrongly assumed everyone on this thread would know both teams have the same owners

It must have been quite a shock when you googled the Red Sox and found out they have the same owners as us.

So you're calling me names because you can't express yourself properly or even intelligibly.
You say you're comparing owners, indicating you think there are different owners, then throw out personal insults when it's pointed out we have the same owners, rather than just clarifying what you mean.

I get it.
You're not very intelligent and have trouble with the written word.
That's fine, but in future keep your insults to yourself, or simply clarify what you mean.

 

Cmon Swabbo its clear what hes saying.

I know you get it as well your an intelligent poster.

It's not clear though.

In fact it's the complete opposite of clear.
The only clear thing is that he indicated the two clubs had different owners, how can you compare something that isn't different?

It's not clear though.

In fact it's the complete opposite of clear.
The only clear thing is that he indicated the two clubs had different owners, how can you compare something that isn't different?

I misjudged you then from all your previous posts and your ability to read between the lines.

Have a good weekend mate I'll let the original poster walk you through what he means as its crystal clear to me.

With the bench Chelsea,Arsenal,City, Tottenham & Mancs have just shows how well we have performed with our lightweight squad & bench...

Spot on Shabs its testament to Klopp and the players to be up there still.

I misjudged you then from all your previous posts and your ability to read between the lines.

Have a good weekend mate I'll let the original poster walk you through what he means as its crystal clear to me.

He know what I mean. I know he knows. You know he knows

His main problem is he can not defend how FSG look after out team when compared to how they look after the Red Sox.

So instead of admitting the owners care more about the Red Sox he attacks my grammar
 

The failure to get Dale Ali is the worst !

He wanted to come here, Rodgers wanted him. He is a Liverpool supporter but the owners would only offer him £4,000 a week. At that time MK Dons were paying him £3,500 a week.

Imagine that going from MK Dons (turnover less than £6 million) to Liverpool (turnover  £300 million) and only being offered a rise of 15%

A 15 % rise !
Our turnover is FIFTY times that of MK Dons
Our wage bill is TWENTY FIVE time their turnover 
We paid Benteke more than MK Dons make in a year
We offered Dale Ali £4,000 a week. Yet we were paying Ian Ayre £24,000 a week ?

 

 

and Sturridge ...    One Hundred and Twenty Thousand  Pounds a week.

You and swab seem to be the only ones talking about conspiracies and money being taken out

 They have done well of the pitch. But so has every club around us. Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs have done just as well. Somehow they all seem to be able to do well of the pitch and still build squads who can compete. They also seem to be able to identify to class players and recruit them.

I will admit you can not compare the transfer systems of Football to Baseball. But I am not comparing the systems. I am comparing the owners of the Red Sox and the owners of Liverpool.
The owners of the Red Sox will do everything possible to ensure they team is the best possible team. The owners of Liverpool seem uninterested at best. At worst they don’t care.   

It is more than fair to compare how the owners represent there teams !

He know what I mean. I know he knows. You know he knows

His main problem is he can not defend how FSG look after out team when compared to how they look after the Red Sox.

So instead of admitting the owners care more about the Red Sox he attacks my grammar
 

You very clearly wrote as though you were talking about 2 different owners, and that's your problem not mine, but as usual on these boards you prefer to throw abuse around instead of just clarifying what you meant.

I'm not here to defend FSG, but I dislike the lies and bullshit, which you throw out every single window.

So, now you've made that statement, the burden of proof is on you to show how we are treated differently from the Red Sox, bearing in mind both clubs can only spend what they earn, and don't take money off each other.
It seems to me a pretty pointless task though, given the differences in how each sport works, but go ahead and show this proof that you have.

You see, I'm just a bloke who gives everyone a fair crack until they show they don't deserve it; not in some vague way comparing ownership, but with actual proof, something you have failed to supply every time you go on one of your little rants.

We've had this before, where you throw your toys out of the pram when you get proved wrong, so front up and provide proof of this huge disparity you talk about, or stfu.

You said there subs bench was equal to ours, it is not.

Whether I rate Fellaini or not which I don't or Sissoko for that matter they would still be above what we have on ours in terms of ability to change games.

So because I said theirs is no better than ours that means I said we don't need to strengthen? Ok then, not sure how you worked that out but whatever.

Are you being serious here or on a wind-up? Serious question.

I'm being deadly serious.

Out of curiosity, why did you bold them bits? Xhaka had about 10 red cards over the last 4 seasons, 2 of which have come this season. Not agree that is a liability?
Also not sure what you think he has done this season.
Disagree with Ox? Dont remember you crying out that we should sign him when he was linked recently.

Why is the Rashford bit in bold? Disagree? What's he actually done this season? back end of last season too for that matter.

Not going to go through every player, take too long but tried to stick to the bits that are in bold as I'm guessing that's what you must take issue with.

Equally, it's as plain as the nose on your face that they ARE fattening up the business and keeping the costs down relative to like for like clubs so that when they sell it, they get an absolutely massive dividend. I honestly can't believe anybody would dispute that.

Anyone who attempts to convince otherwise is ignoring fact and insulting the intelligence of others; proof of which is them resorting to personal comment in an effort to make their opinion appear viable.
Seven years of faulted economies see the club in the 'runner up' category, it would be marketed as a concern with great potential - more's the pity JWH&Co cannot see the potential and ultimate reward LFC represents.

So because I said theirs is no better than ours that means I said we don't need to strengthen? Ok then, not sure how you worked that out but whatever.

I'm being deadly serious.

Out of curiosity, why did you bold them bits? Xhaka had about 10 red cards over the last 4 seasons, 2 of which have come this season. Not agree that is a liability?
Also not sure what you think he has done this season.
Disagree with Ox? Dont remember you crying out that we should sign him when he was linked recently.

Why is the Rashford bit in bold? Disagree? What's he actually done this season? back end of last season too for that matter.

Not going to go through every player, take too long but tried to stick to the bits that are in bold as I'm guessing that's what you must take issue with.

Ah right, I thought/hoped it was one of those Debs style sarcastic posts. Essentially the fella was talking about Arsenals bench, and you said (of Aaaron Ramsay, Olivier Giroud, Granite Xhaka and Alex Oxlaide Chamberlain, that "none of them impress me in the slightest". Are you seriously suggesting that on our bench they wouldn't improve things? Really?

On Uniteds bench when he mentioned Rooney, Mata, Rashford, Mhiktarian and Fellaini, you said "I would take Mata and that's it". You're saying that Mikkiwhatsisface, Rashford, yes even Felleini and Rooney wouldn't get into our squad or onto our bench? Really?

You then said of Spurs " if you think Sissoko is an asset to have on the bench that we could do with then you are mistaken".

Have you actually seen our bench recently? I'm not sure your account hasn't been hacked. I've often disagreed with you but at least your opinions in the past have been fairly sensible, considered and reasonable. It is you isn't it? (I'm not convinced).