NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

Yet some are quite happy with the proposition that the capitol you indicate evaporates and is never used to improve the prospects of LFC, could that be described as creaming the pot I wonder?

Improving profit margin stats and increasing dividends does little for our football status.

Just out of interest Stuey, what more exactly are you wanting FSG to do?

Over the lest few years they've developed the stadium, are looking to develop the training facilities, appointed the best coach we've had in years, allowed him and the recruitment team to build the best squad we've had in years and developed the commercial side of the business to increase revenue and value.

What exactly do you want them to 'spend their own money' on?

Factor in they have said since day 1 they would spend what the club generates on players and won't put the club in any danger of spending beyond its means.

This window has been a good one but it wouldn't have even existed if it wasn't for the sale of coutinho. We'd still be going into this season with a serious lack of depth and with key positions that need strengthening. A club of our size shouldn't have to sell its best players to sign other ones.

Three factors purposely ignored by the delusional section of fan base who pretend that football owners have 100% control over of all players, transfer fees are efficient representations of value, and certain revenues streams are not to be included in discussions about team spending..........factor s that board narrative manufacturers purposely exclude when crafting their fiction.

Truths:

1) South American stars Suarez and Coutinho forced their way out of Liverpool. One chewed his way out, the other faked injury. Barca is the dream destination for the best South American players ...and players can create leverage. They did. Ownership proved powerless. Other examples: Nomar=>PSG, Ronaldo=>Juventus, etc etc etc

2) Selling Coutinho for that absurd price was FSG's best piece of business since buying Liverpool. Big leg from the outside but little else. His efforts with Brazil showcased his strengths and his limitations. Despite his lofty valuation, he is not an elite star....far from it. He will continue to be exposed as limited and overrated.
Liverpool took a giant step forward with his departure.....from a one-man focal point, midfield based attack to an elite frontline attack.

3) The relevance of the enormous 2017-18 Champions League bounty owed to Liverpool...+/- 100 million.
Hmmmmmmm.....approximate ly the same amount Liverpool will net-pay out after transfer season is over. Coincidence?
Budgets are constructed based on attainable goals. The 2017-18 team far exceeded these goals and the additional revenue is being spent on the field....pound for pound

Insisting the 2018 spending bump is based solely on the sale of Coutinho is lazy analysis.

Instead of hitting the reply button instantly and waffling on talking rubbish with a load of smoke coming off your keyboard, just slow down, take a second, and read what I'm actually saying before you respond. You said nothing I say makes sense. But I've made 2000 or so posts and have 1000 little likes. A 50% ratio. So it seems most people understand what I say but you don't.

I didn't say klopp is 1% influence.

What I said was, in today's football world money talks 99% of the time. But fortunately for Liverpool, we are in that other tiny 1%, and the reason we are in that tiny 1% is because of Jürgen Klopp. It doesn't matter that we can't pay the highest wages at the moment, because we have a manager who everybody wants to play for. We are part of a project, klopps project, and everybody wants to be a part of it.

Both Keita and Van Dijk could have got more wages elsewhere. Do they care? No. Because they want to play for Klopp. As I keep saying, it's that bloody simple. If we had a different manager in charge then they would have chosen the wages instead.

Just imagine we didn't have klopp and we still had Brendan Rodgers. We approach Van Dijk and say come and play for us big Virgil. But both Chelsea and city do the same thing and they offer him higher wages.

What do you think he's going to do? Look mate, you can kid yourself all you want and say he still would have signed for us and you can talk about our history and you can talk about how great anfield is on a European night, but I think your incredibly naive if you genuinely believe that.

Truth is, I don't actually think you do believe that. I think you know full well we wouldn't have a chance in hell at signing somebody like Van Dijk if it wasn't for Jürgen. So I don't know why you're still quoting me and arguing just for arguments sake.

Let's just hope Jürgen klopp is at Liverpool for a long, long time because I'm absolutely certain that when he decides to leave, presuming FSG are still here and presuming we appoint somebody like F***ing Eddie Howe to replace him, we won't be persuading anybody of a high standard to sign for us and we will go back to signing sh*te like downing and benteke and being miserable in F***ing 8th.

FSG have backed every manager under their ownership with the money they've made from sales. But that's it. So going back to the original point of money talks, when Brendan wanted Sanchez or Costa or Willian did FSG throw more money at them to persuade them to sign? No.

Have FSG thrown money at Virgil and Keita for them to sign? No. Because other clubs offered them more money. But we're in that little 1% because money doesn't matter when you have klopp as manager. They want to play for him.

Without klopp, we're fu**ed.

I was going to say that I have no idea why you consider your opinion to be fact.

Then I remembered I was on a football forum.

Please post your evidence that Keita and VVD could have got better wages elsewhere.

Hey everybody, did you see those photos of and quotes from Allison Becker at training today? Man did he look good commanding his area. In one piccy, he is rolling the ball out and Karim Benzema is nowhere to be seen!  His comments about his goals for being here and his admiration for his teammates and the club as a whole - just what you want to hear for a new signing. He's really bringing some confidence to the position, much-needed.

Totally off topic I know, but wanted to break the string of the longest-running circular debate Colonel Sanders and Foghorn Leghorn first verbally threw hands about whether the chicken or the egg came first (it was the chicken, btw - you don't get eggs without a chicken and anyone who thinks otherwise is a dope).

Three factors purposely ignored by the delusional section of fan base who pretend that football owners have 100% control over of all players, transfer fees are efficient representations of value, and certain revenues streams are not to be included in discussions about team spending..........factor s that board narrative manufacturers purposely exclude when crafting their fiction.

Truths:

1) South American stars Suarez and Coutinho forced their way out of Liverpool. One chewed his way out, the other faked injury. Barca is the dream destination for the best South American players ...and players can create leverage. They did. Ownership proved powerless. Other examples: Nomar=>PSG, Ronaldo=>Juventus, etc etc etc

2) Selling Coutinho for that absurd price was FSG's best piece of business since buying Liverpool. Big leg from the outside but little else. His efforts with Brazil showcased his strengths and his limitations. Despite his lofty valuation, he is not an elite star....far from it. He will continue to be exposed as limited and overrated.
Liverpool took a giant step forward with his departure.....from a one-man focal point, midfield based attack to an elite frontline attack.

3) The relevance of the enormous 2017-18 Champions League bounty owed to Liverpool...+/- 100 million.
Hmmmmmmm.....approximate ly the same amount Liverpool will net-pay out after transfer season is over. Coincidence?
Budgets are constructed based on attainable goals. The 2017-18 team far exceeded these goals and the additional revenue is being spent on the field....pound for pound

Insisting the 2018 spending bump is based solely on the sale of Coutinho is lazy analysis.

Your post is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they wanted to stay or go.

If we had kept coutinho would we have signed the players we have?

No.

So what if coutinho wanted to stay? Where would we be? Still struggling with squad depth and still several positions that urgently need upgrading on?

The owners have done a good job on you haven't they.

Ah, that famous Leeds united line. The thing is though, football has moved on from 15 years since Leeds where in the top flight. The money in the game now is insane.

Liverpool/FSG have plenty of money to spend on transfers so don't be so foolish to think otherwise. We have the money from player sales, which is re invested, but we also have the money from the new tv deals and our prize money from the CL. Not to mention all the other revenue the club generates because of how big it is.

The owners haven't done a job on anyone … it's basic economics. You're talking like an 18 year-old who has just gotten their first credit card and hasn't got a clue how it actually works: spend, spend, spend and to hell with the consequences.

The game might have moved on since 15 years ago but those basic facts of economics have not. Nobody - you included - knows what's around the corner and what will happen with TV money. Lots of Championship teams overspent many years ago because they budgeted for money promised to them by Setanta who subsequently went bust. Accruing too much debt is never a good idea.

Not to mention all the other revenue the club generates because of how big it is.

Which has increased significantly after the £100m of investment from FSG

The owners haven't done a job on anyone … it's basic economics. You're talking like an 18 year-old who has just gotten their first credit card and hasn't got a clue how it actually works: spend, spend, spend and to hell with the consequences.

The game might have moved on since 15 years ago but those basic facts of economics have not. Nobody - you included - knows what's around the corner and what will happen with TV money. Lots of Championship teams overspent many years ago because they budgeted for money promised to them by Setanta who subsequently went bust. Accruing too much debt is never a good idea.
Which has increased significantly after the £100m of investment from FSG

Sorry to butt in here, but many people seem to be missing the wage bill, which usually runs to about 50%-60% of turnover, which is a massive amount when you think about it.

They reduced the wage bill right down when they first come in, and have since been increasing it again, slowly but surely, but based on performance that can be quantified, hence the pay rise for Salah and the new contract for Mane.

The owners haven't done a job on anyone … it's basic economics. You're talking like an 18 year-old who has just gotten their first credit card and hasn't got a clue how it actually works: spend, spend, spend and to hell with the consequences.

The game might have moved on since 15 years ago but those basic facts of economics have not. Nobody - you included - knows what's around the corner and what will happen with TV money. Lots of Championship teams overspent many years ago because they budgeted for money promised to them by Setanta who subsequently went bust. Accruing too much debt is never a good idea.
Which has increased significantly after the £100m of investment from FSG

You quite clearly have absolutely no idea how much money our club generates. Should have stopped replying as soon as you mentioned Leeds.

The only evidence needed is our net spend. Before this summer was it negative under Klopp?

No, when you include the money spent on developing the stadium, training facilities etc - £100m investment altogether - it is not negative.

Yet some are quite happy with the proposition that the capitol you indicate evaporates and is never used to improve the prospects of LFC, could that be described as creaming the pot I wonder?

Improving profit margin stats and increasing dividends does little for our football status.

Seriously, what are you on about? Money does not evaporate! They have accounts. These accounts are published. They are a matter of public record.

Increased profits means we can afford better players; it does loads for our football status.

You quite clearly have absolutely no idea how much money our club generates. Should have stopped replying as soon as you mentioned Leeds.

Yes we do

It's public and you can look at the income statement of 2017 to know how much our club generates.

Your post is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they wanted to stay or go.

If we had kept coutinho would we have signed the players we have?

No.

So what if coutinho wanted to stay? Where would we be? Still struggling with squad depth and still several positions that urgently need upgrading on?

You need a new prescription for your A.D.D......your thoughts are beyond scattered. Maybe you are in the placebo group.

You quite clearly have absolutely no idea how much money our club generates. Should have stopped replying as soon as you mentioned Leeds.

I've read the accounts. I've know that TV money is the single biggest source of our overall income - what's your point?

Yes we do

It's public and you can look at the income statement of 2017 to know how much our club generates.

364 million, as of last year (no european football)
208 million in player wages.
Roughly 57% of turnover.
Took 2 minutes to find

Those 2 figures will increase significantly in the next published accounts.

Just out of interest Stuey, what more exactly are you wanting FSG to do?

Over the lest few years they've developed the stadium, are looking to develop the training facilities, appointed the best coach we've had in years, allowed him and the recruitment team to build the best squad we've had in years and developed the commercial side of the business to increase revenue and value.

What exactly do you want them to 'spend their own money' on?

Factor in they have said since day 1 they would spend what the club generates on players and won't put the club in any danger of spending beyond its means.

I would like them to treat an established profitable asset as such and promote it accordingly

In the actual long term everyone benefits from realistically backing the asset.
Not loaning the club money to actually benefit not only LFC but also the owners when they eventually sell on and profit unbelievably on their £260m initial outlay.

Keita was bought this summer. The deal was made last year, but the transactions go through this year. Therefore, after the coutinho sale.

The only evidence needed is our net spend. Before this summer was it negative under Klopp?

Even after we've spent 200m or so this summer, our net spend under klopp is still considerably low. And with half a dozen or so players certain to leave it will go even lower too.

I've explained it about ten times already today but Alisson and Keita would not have signed for Liverpool if it wasn't for Jürgen klopp. So instead of signing two world class players, we would have signed four or five alright ones for the same fee if we had a different manager like Rodgers. The same money would have been spent, but on dross. It's klopp who is bringing a certain calibre of player here - NOT FSG.

I'm not sure that's true, I think Keita's transaction went through in 2017 but I need to check the P&L.

Net spend is not our evidence. Again, you are assuming things based on zero evidence.

Our net spend for the last 3 years has been 141.06m.

I'm not sure that's true, I think Keita's transaction went through in 2017 but I need to check the P&L.

Net spend is not our evidence. Again, you are assuming things based on zero evidence.

Our net spend for the last 3 years has been 141.06m.

Installment paid, and amortisation carried forwards into next accounting period if memory serves.

I would like them to treat an established profitable asset as such and promote it accordingly

In the actual long term everyone benefits from realistically backing the asset.
Not loaning the club money to actually benefit not only LFC but also the owners when they eventually sell on and profit unbelievably on their £260m initial outlay.

Not sure that answers my question and I'm still none the wiser.

Not sure that answers my question and I'm still none the wiser.

He wants them to put their own money in (FFP is apparently not a concern)

He thinks we've paid back the stadium loan (we haven't and it's likely Mike Gordon will take extra equity from any future sale instead of asking for the load to be repaid, which makes sense, because he would make more money that way).

The real reason he doesn't like them is because they "sacked" Dalglish, but as KK has been employed in another role, that point is pretty much moot, so he tries to baffle with bullshit like "feeding the tangible asset that is Liverpool" which is basically meaningless waffle.

I would like them to treat an established profitable asset as such and promote it accordingly

In the actual long term everyone benefits from realistically backing the asset.
Not loaning the club money to actually benefit not only LFC but also the owners when they eventually sell on and profit unbelievably on their £260m initial outlay.

Current Boston Red Sox valuation....$3 Billion
2002 purchase price $380 million
+784%
Currently.....Highest payroll, top of the table, massive profits

Here's FSG's phone # 617-226-6484
Give 'em a call and offer your expertise. Tell 'em "to treat an established profitable asset as such and promote it accordingly" because clearly they haven't a clue.

Liverpool...from 300 mill to 1 billion valuation since 2010
+333%

But give 'em a call. Let 'em know all about proper accounting

Current Boston Red Sox valuation....$3 Billion
2002 purchase price $380 million
+784%
Currently.....Highest payroll, top of the table, massive profits

Here's FSG's phone # 617-226-6484
Give 'em a call and offer your expertise. Tell 'em "to treat an established profitable asset as such and promote it accordingly" because clearly they haven't a clue.

Liverpool...from 300 mill to 1 billion valuation since 2010
+333%

But give 'em a call. Let 'em know all about proper accounting

I haven't kept up with the Red Sox, mostly because I don't give a F**k about them, but that's very impressive growth.

OK, it's different to football, with trades rather than transfers, but doesn't that just mean the transfer money is paid out in player wages instead?

 Seriously, what are you on about? Money does not evaporate! They have accounts. These accounts are published. They are a matter of public record.

Increased profits means we can afford better players; it does loads for our football status.

What are you dyslexic?
Why have I got to break down everything because it is not your interpretation of things 

As stated in a football context monies from advertising, royalties, CL prize money etc evaporates when dividends and profit margins etc take priority.

Better players acquired by former managers are sold and thankfully the genius of Klopp attracts signings,
"Increased profits" are destined for healthy profit margins and increased dividends.

Current Boston Red Sox valuation....$3 Billion
2002 purchase price $380 million
+784%
Currently.....Highest payroll, top of the table, massive profits

Here's FSG's phone # 617-226-6484
Give 'em a call and offer your expertise. Tell 'em "to treat an established profitable asset as such and promote it accordingly" because clearly they haven't a clue.

Liverpool...from 300 mill to 1 billion valuation since 2010
+333%

But give 'em a call. Let 'em know all about proper accounting

Well known that Red Sox are given preferential financial backing.

Well known that Red Sox are given preferential financial backing.

Have to be honest with you in this Stuey, i generally try to stay out of commenting in this thread.

JWH or FSG have never put money into the Sox except the initial purchase...and a loan from the company to when they refurbished Fenway.