In regards to fans mentioning in Chelsea and Manchester City's spending power I understand your points but you have to factor in that money does not always make a team. Players need to gel regardless of their prices and the training methods and style of a team can be very important in that happening.
Swansea City have only really spent the Allen money and picked up bargains. Michu for £2m, De Guzman is on loan I believe but he is a brilliant player who fits the system and allows the others to get forward whilst sweeping up behind them and breaking down attacks. He allows Britton to get into full flow as Swansea City's metronome and dictate play and control possession. That didn't happen overnight, it took nyon 6 years from Martinez to Sousa to Rodgers to find that perfect balance but they found.
The big point is they found it whilst being sustainable. Not once did they need a top 6 Championship finish to earn playoff competition money to keep ticking over. Thats what the top clubs in the Premiership need to do at Premiership level. They need the competition money to be able to tick over otherwise times will get tougher for them.
Loads of money is not needed to compete. Newcastle are testament to that to some degree. There are plenty of bargains out there. Whilst many fans would love the owners to go out and splash out £25m on a striker that would be a bad idea in my opinion. If he flops like Carroll there is no return on him and the club are stuck with him on the books looking to loan him out to save on the wages. If Rodgers looks now over the next season for a bargain who can fit his system the club could pick up a player like Barrios for a bargain who could turn into a player of world class ability and we'd instantly be looking at a profit.
Arsenal are proof money does not need to be spent massively to compete. They are always floating up there amongst the top 4 and although they have won nothing for ages that is down to a completely different reason entirely. The reason is they sell their best players at their peak to maximise profits and intake. They sell players like Nasri when they're in the form of their life to rivals so whilst they are making money they are also strengthening rivals, i.e. again the Van Persie deal. That has been one main fault in Arsenals plans.
The fact is Liverpool need to buy cheap and once the players have reached their best the club must hold on to them, thats how the club can compete at the next level above Arsenal. The club must do what Arsenal are doing but then hold on to the key players instead of selling them on. Maybe sell one or two to make profits but then add that profit to commercial income and you can reinvest into a quality player.
With £3m per season interest to service the club should now realistically be making a profit. With profit comes investment. With profit also comes other great things one of which being not having to worry about where the club is tomorrow.
There are 3 ways a club can compete at the top and only 1 keeps a club in the black financially
1) The FSG/Dortmund method - sustainability and spending what the club earns
2) The billionaire owner method - An owner comes in and splashes loads of cash using loans with around 7% interest rate which is usually around the rate used these days in football business
3) The loans and relying on competition money method - Again, this builds up debt and interest - the route LFC have already been down - it does not work all the time and has a massive risk factor - one that can set you back just as it has now - the club are now paying for the mistakes of this method - no one wants to go down this route again
Out of all three the 1st option is the best - it keeps the club afloat and thats what matters most. Keeping the club afloat and making profits is key to the long term plan. FSG have tried as much as possible to maximise commercial ventures. Some fans not like the clubs details aired on TV but at the end of the day those same fans would be the first scraping the walls if FSG racked up a £20m debt instead.
Money does not always equal a good squad. Manchester City splashed millions on players like Robinho and then had to get rid and that would have cost them money, no doubt about it. They are high risk moves. A good squad, a good team that can compete can be built on a shoe string budget and Swansea on a shoe string budget have beaten teams with much more investment by simply playing them off the park. Their problem is lack of quality in depth and thats because they do not have the commercial activity a club like Liverpool have to capitalise on.
In regards to people saying Dortmund don't have massive competitors in the Bundesliga, again that is false. Clubs have tried to spend their way up the league but have failed thus collapsing. Owners in the Bundesliga who own 49% (Because of the 50+1 rule) have tried to do it and failed because teams like Dortmund have capitalised on long term sustainability. Munich spend quite a bit of money and Dortmund beat them last year, they beat a side who got to the final of the Champions League (pens may I add) to the title. That proves teams can compete on a shoe string budget. Its all about being clever in the market and scouting and poaching talent that can fit the ethos at the club. There is no point spending £30m on a player hoping he will fit the plans just because he is a name. There is a point in spending £5m on a young striker you have scouted and can nurture into a great talent. Its less of a gamble first and foremost but you can also make sure he can fit your style.
The stadium issue - Liverpool charge more than Dortmund for tickets. Dortmund's tickets are on average €15. They may take in 80,000 but their fans are paying a lot less per ticket and Dortmund do not issue a lot of season tickets because of regulations in place that favour the fans.
For example - if you look at the pricing.
The average Dortmund ticket is just €15 (roughly £12)
The average for Anfield I believe is around the £45 mark. (11/12 stats - unsure of this season, I will admit)
The maths
£12*80,000 vs £45*40,000 = we won't factor in a full crowd at Anfield
Dortmund take in roughly £960,000 per home game
Liverpool take in roughly £1.8m - almost double because of inflated prices in the UK
So as you see the bigger stadium comparison doesn't really reflect the truth because the DFB doesn't allow German clubs to rake in cash as is the case in the UK. Their clubs actually get less in gate receipts which of course benefits the fans financially, but not the club. However the clubs do not need to rake in all that cash because they are not in stupid amounts of debt like Premiership clubs. Thats why QPR, Arsenal, United, Chelsea etc all charge stupidly inflated prices - to service debts.
I can see your points and understand this may all come across as spin but until I see FSG start selling star players after 1 good season for maximal profit like Arsenal I'll show belief in them.
