Sugardaddy owners, anyone?

First of all I want to state that I am fully behind our owners, When they bought the club and saved us from "The Cowboys" it was one of my happiest days as a Liverpool supporter. FSG have given us back stability, and have us in a healthy financial position.
They have kept the traditions and values of club the supporters alive, something the previous owners didn't care much about!

FSG have spent a lot of money on new players, but it seems we are not able to compete financially for world class players. FSG give the impression their philosophy is produce tallent rather than buy it, which over time could well work, but judging by what I'm reading from supporters on a daily basis now, we as fans running out of patience for the glory days to return.

So my question is, How many of you would swap FSG for "Manchester City" type owners? Owners who would spend whatever it takes to "buy" the league title.

With owners like this, tradition counts for very little, and it could well lead to naming rights for Anfield or a new stadium altogether!
Your thoughts?

Whatever owners we have the ultimate aim of every Liverpool supporter is to see this club returned to the very top and be the envy of every other club in England and Europe once again.Any owner who has control should know about our history and tradition,they should also know that our supporters are not fools as Hicks and Gillette found out to their detriment.
                                                                        Another point is when overseas owners buy our club they should appoint people who are suitably qualified to run the club and not try and run it from abroad.

 I would basically swap FSG for every EPL owner apart from the Glaziers

 So I would be much happier with a sugar daddy, then again, Dave Whelan is a sugar daddy when compared to FSG

No.

This club was here well before we were and needs to be here well after were gone. That might not happen if we got in spend happy owners. Look at Leeds. What will chelsea do when Abramovich has had enough wholl pay there bills.

All well and good splashing 40 million quid on players left right and centre and paying them from 75grand a week up. Doesn't mean you will win everything. And when the sugar daddy pis*es off the club is left with crippling debts that could kill the club. Fook that.

FSG have hardly been tight arses maybe the managers who worked under them have not spend there money wisely but either way when FSG pack up its fair to say the club wont be in a mess.

What we want is owners like the old days. Boss tells them how much he wants for a player, they question it he anwers there questions gets the money, gets the player, builds his team and wins the pots

So my question is, How many of you would swap FSG for "Manchester City" type owners? Owners who would spend whatever it takes to "buy" the league title.

Aye, why not? If winning titles and trophies (which tend to bring more money in by the way ) is your goal, that is.

With owners like this, tradition counts for very little, and it could well lead to naming rights for Anfield or a new stadium altogether!
Your thoughts?

Er... wasn't/isn't that a possibility with the owners we have now?


The suggestion in your question, and subsequent replies, is that "Sugar Daddies" (the very term is loaded and emotive) are bad, care little about the clubs they own and will bankrupt them but... what if they didn't and don't? What if they do care and don't bankrupt them?

What if, instead, they deliver a top class team which wins trophies, year on year? Then, with the money generated from Champions League football, increased sponsorship (due to an enhanced global awareness and fan-base) and bigger revenue through bigger gate receipts and merchandise sales, bring even more financial stability to the club?

Would you want a "Sugar Daddy" then? 

No.

This club was here well before we were and needs to be here well after were gone. That might not happen if we got in spend happy owners. Look at Leeds. What will chelsea do when Abramovich has had enough wholl pay there bills.

All well and good splahing 40 million quid on players left right and centre and payingt hem from 75grand a week up. Doesnt mean you will win everything. And when the sugar daddy pis*es off the club is left with crippling debts that could kill the club. Fook that.

FSG have hardly been tight arses maybe the managers who worked under them have not spend there money wisely but either way when FSG pack up its fair to say the club wont be in a mess.

What we want is owners like the old days. Boss tells them how much he wants for a player, they question it he anwers theres questions gets the money, gets the player, builds his team and wins the pots

Fair play to you Brian, what you say about the club and it's standing post FSG is a very probable expectation; in all likelihood LFC would be debt free and an attractive prospect to any would be entrepeneur.
The attractive prospect in that case does not really bear comparison to the aspirations of the support base who see success on the field of play as the only standard for LFC, any other level of product quality is neglible and of a secondary interest.
It follows that FSG are quite prepared to run the club as an ''attractive business prospect'' in preference to establishing it as a leader in it's field, if somebody can see the potential and take advantage of the fact - mission accomplished.
If not we jog on as a safe, self-perpetuating investment.

I would take owners like the City & Chelsea.

They put their money where their mouth is.

No cut backs,no dampening down of expectations,expect Silverware.

I've amended your title. Please don't use all caps in a title or post.

Thank you.

Its like formula 1 nowadays , if you dont invest big you get put at the back of the grid .
    We are uming and arrhing about players being a couple of million overpriced and wage demads being to high and im affraid thats what the glorious game has come down to £££££s.

There's nothing wrong with being financed by a "Sugar Daddy"; ask Linda if you don't believe me. 

As long as they don't buy players and pay wages that they can afford to pay but the club couldn't sustain should they seem up and leave.

To be honest all I'm after in the short term is for FSG to loosen the purse strings a little and get in two or three top quality players to add to our promising youth.

I don't see it happening however so another option would be welcome by me at this present time.

I'd swap our owner for owners who have the same resources but are more clued up on football, doesn't have to be a sugar daddy for me.

The more things I read about our club the more concerned I am about our immediate future.

Now don't get me wrong FSG's plan may all come together in 5 or 6 seasons time, but there is no guarantee's that it will.

Guillem Ball Bag saying the club never got back in touch with Cruyyf after he'd made the initial contact with the club if true was a shocking decision by our owners.

The transfer policy that is non existent to some even following our skipper and little Uruguyan questioning it.

The new wage structure is another concern.

The two latter ones certainly narrowing the market when it comes to attracting players to the club.

That's without going into the Dempsey debacle, hanging Kenny and Luis out to dry during the racism storm after only getting involved once the sponsors started making noises etc etc.

Personally I'd take Parry and Moores over our current custodians.

Whilst FSG are no Hicks and Gillett and I do believe that their intentions/decisions whilst naïve and lacking a true understanding of football, is what they believe is the best way forward.

I'm genuinely concerned about the immediate future of the club though as I feel were been run by people learning their trade from the the top to the bottom at the club.

Maybe you can carry new owners with no football pedigree if you have a CEO/MD with a good football pedigree and a good manager with a football pedigree, hate to say it but the Mancs as a prime example.

But having Owners, MD, Manager and even some first team players learning their trade is a bit too much and mistakes are going to be made, making progress and the ability to compete that much harder.

Count me in for an owner who will build the greatest squad, staff, facilities, and club in the world.

Couldn't care less who the owners are IF they back the club financially within reason and they make good footballing decisions. So far the verdict is out on whether FSG have the capacity to do this.

A genuine question; would any one give a F**k if some Arab or Russian bankrolled us to the league title? after a 20 odd year drought to pick up a league title would mean so much for us supporters.

I would accept it.

I guess its only American owned clubs that are screaming for financial fair play,Arse,Spuds,Mancs,LFC.

Couldn't care less who the owners are IF they back the club financially within reason and they make good footballing decisions. So far the verdict is out on whether FSG have the capacity to do this.

What more could you add to that statement??

I'd take any owners that don't bleed us dry and understand that winning is everything.

I'm with Daz on this one, too many people at the Club are learning as they go and for a Club of our stature that isn't acceptable.

To be the best, you have to hire the best.  It's not something that can be done on the cheap.

Since 2010
liverpool spent £182million .
Chelsea            £203million .
Man utd            £136million
Man City           £317 million

So since 2010 united have spent the least and won the most , so i dont really know what the problem is then

So since 2010 united have spent the least and won the most , so i dont really know what the problem is then

And what about pre 2010? How much did they spend invest to get to the point where they didn't need to spend? Use your napper mate. 

Since 2010
liverpool spent £182million .
Chelsea            £203million .
Man utd            £136million
Man City           £317 million

So since 2010 united have spent the least and won the most , so i dont really know what the problem is then

None of the other owners put ridiculous stipulations on age and nationality on their manager's signings. That's the difference. City without the policy target Aguero, Liverpool target Carroll. City without the policy target Toure, Liverpool target Downing. Our position is nothing to do with not having "sugardaddy" owners, it's to do with the ridiculous Young-British only policy they put in place. Only now are they waking up and realising it was a mistake.

Since 2010
liverpool spent £182million .
Chelsea            £203million .
Man utd            £136million
Man City           £317 million

So since 2010 united have spent the least and won the most , so i dont really know what the problem is then

we have done the spend ing bit Net spend etc doesnt look the same.

There are two types of owners those who love football and have an association with the club and those who are very wealthy like football and buy a club to be part of the sport.Ours don not seem to fit either category they don't like football they certainly do not have an association with the club or the city and they dont have deep enough pockets.The question is what is their motivation for beinghere?.

Doesn't have to be sugar daddy owners for me just willing to invest and put their money where there mouth is

Our position is nothing to do with not having "sugardaddy" owners, it's to do with the ridiculous Young-British only policy they put in place.

Except it's not a young, British only policy is it? Suarez, Coates, Enrique, Doni, Bijev, Borini, Assaidi and Yesil... that's eight, out of our fourteen signings, in the past two seasons, who don't fit the perceived 'profile'.

Then again players like Nick Powell; Phil Jones; Ashley Young; Chris Smalling; Michael Carrick; Wayne Rooney and Rio Ferdinand might show that signing young, British players has some merit, when building a winning team, even if they don't come cheap... £123m that lot cost.. Rooney and Ferdinand £54.5 alone... back in the day when £54.5m was worth a lot more than now.

On topic: would I like a "Sugar Daddy" owner to get us back on top? Yes, why wouldn't I? 

No real reason for not wanting one.

If we get into the CL and challenge for the league and also have the stadium sorted then we'll be less reliant on money from outside the club anyway. We'll be able to buy a couple of world class players each year from prize money, TV money and sponsorships alone. Don't think Roman spent that much of his own money this summer due to their CL win.

It doesn't matter how many teeth or kids he has to his name, if he can put us back on the footy map what more could you ask for?
Principles and caution while very laudable win F**k all.

Since 2010
liverpool spent £182million .
Chelsea            £203million .
Man utd            £136million
Man City           £317 million

So since 2010 united have spent the least and won the most , so i dont really know what the problem is then

Hmm.

Pre the 2010/2011 season:

Valencia   £16,000,000
Berbatov   £30,750,000
Anderson   £15,000,000                      
Hargreaves £17,000,000
Carrick   £18,600,000
Rooney   £27,000,000
Saha   £12,820,000
Ronaldo   £12,200,000
Ferdinand   £27,550,000
Veron   £28,100,000               
Van Nistelrooy   £19,000,000   

Or, like most things, are we going to ignore the massive amount United have invested to get were they are.
Mindless sheep.

Going back to Parry and Moores following the sacking of Houllier, Parry and Moores knew we couldn't compete financially with the Mancs.

They identified that they wanted a manager who had proven he could build a side that could compete with clubs with greater spending power in the here and now, not years down the line.

They identified Benitez.

Spot the difference.

Ownning a football team is the best way to launder money and that probably what happens in some cases. You guys dont rally think the russian is there to earn money with the club per se, do you?
Most South American drug cartels in the 80s and 90s owned teams (some of them are being stripped of the titles won at that time in Colombia, for example), and some Euro/Asian gun/drug/etc cartels are following their example.

"Hey we sold 1 billion kits (when we actually sold 100000)" pay taxes for all, and you get 900000 shirts minus tax of clean money. Same for the players purchases, and that explains in part the insane numbers tossed around .

Sell your soul to the Devil and it will come back later and bite you right in the ass.

That said, i wouldnt mind some crazy b***ard spending 700 million at Liverpool in the near future

It seeme that we are happy to mock City and Chelsea, but are secretly envious!

Our position is nothing to do with not having "sugardaddy" owners, it's to do with the ridiculous Young-British only policy they put in place. Only now are they waking up and realising it was a mistake.

Have to agree there buddy we have spent big money on British but unfortunatly , Brendan Still stands buy his guns and says the squad hasnt got enough depth to compete for top four . Surely if we are hearing this then the owners must be seen to do something about it .
         I havnt seen any of our financial records this year but we must be making a steady profit each week as the owners have been hide nor hear the last few months .
        Over the last 15 yrs we have invested in the squad however we have sold some of our greatest ivestments , we need another big name to say look we are still here and we are here to compete !

Going back to Parry and Moores following the sacking of Houllier, Parry and Moores knew we couldn't compete financially with the Mancs.

They identified that they wanted a manager who had proven he could build a side that could compete with clubs with greater spending power in the here and now, not years down the line.

They identified Benitez.

Spot the difference.

Parry to his credit saw what Rafa had done with Valencia on a budget by breaking the monopoly of Barca & Real.

It seeme that we are happy to mock City and Chelsea, but are secretly envious!

I am envious of any team that has an owner who likes football

It seeme that we are happy to mock City and Chelsea, but are secretly envious!

I'm not envious mate, as I stated I'd take owners with a football pedigree with the same resources available as our current owners.

Making smart football decisions can help you compete just aswell as money.

No thanks, I'd rather have a soul.  As proven at Man City, ANY club could be turned into trophy winners with filthy rich owners.  Where's the achievement in buying the league?

Never want a sugar daddy owner, never will. 

I am envious of any team that has an owner who likes football

Superb

I don't like the mega rich owners constantly spending and buying players. Winning trophies and silverware is always more meaningful when you've earned it through hard work, player development, and scouting. I'd rather win one trophy doing it the right way, than 5 trophies doing it the easy way. Knowing how hard you/the club/whatever worked to win that trophy will last a lifetime. Plus, there's something to be said about the success of a team like Borussia Dortmund in the face of the amount of money Bayern Munich has.

Sadly, the modern game measures success on how many trophies in the cabinet, not how it got there. We have lost too much ground over the last 20 years while some major flops along the way did not help things. Yes, I'd welcome a sugar daddy to fast track us to where we belong but not on a long term basis. We're most probably short of 5 or 6 players to get us up to where we want but we need to develop young players from the academy or from external sources in the long term for continue success like the old days with about 2 major acquisitions every season.

Would much rather have FSG.

FSG do have the money to spend big, but they are a business at the end of the day, so why would they want to work at a loss? We want something sustainable, and while we don't want to be as stubborn as Arsenal in terms of spending, their business model is something that will ensure the long term future of the club. That's what we need right now.

Sugar daddy so often equates to instability and a revolving door of outgoing and incoming managers. What we need is consistency at the moment. FSG are by no means perfect and still have a lot to learn but they are much more preferable to a sugar daddy. There are two extremes of filthy ownership - sugar daddy ownership and the sort of ownership we endured under Hicks and Gillett. Neither offer any structure for the club and both often make life quite a misery. You've got to find a middle way where we can ensure stability and structure along with financial backing to prop the club up to the heights we want to go. It's what the very greatest clubs in Europe have. We don't have that but we can definitely build it to rival the likes of a Bayern Munich, Barcelona or AC Milan. At the end of the day I wouldn't replace FSG's ownership at the moment despite the comedy of errors seen the past two years. But that's all they are - comedy of errors. Not a horror show. Ultimately I still trust them and are much more preferable to a filthy sugar daddy.

Since 2010
Liverpool spent £182million .
Chelsea            £203million .
man utd £136million  Scum.
Man City           £317 million

So since 2010 united the Scum have spent the least and won the most , so i don't really know what the problem is then

Facht.

Since 2010
liverpool spent £182million .
Chelsea            £203million .
Man utd            £136million
Man City           £317 million

So since 2010 united have spent the least and won the most , so i dont really know what the problem is then

I have a few issues with this:

First, Liverpool starts with a capital letter.

Second, these stats do not take into account any monies received from player sales or other income.

Thirdly, Utd have had a long period of stability, thus they only need to tweak the team now and again, and when they do, they can spend big on a single player.

In all fairness to our current owners, they have given us quite a bit of money to spend already, unfortunately most of it has been blown on average players so our progress stalled a bit on the pitch front. I don't think a sugardaddy owner is the way forward however, but our current owners do need to concentrate their full efforts on Liverpool and Liverpool alone.

They bought the biggest club in the world in terms of tradition, success and culture so they must have known what they were getting into. We don't hope, we expect because we're Liverpool, we expect to win, win and keep on winning. Money is becoming more and more imperative in football unfortunately. The owners have to realise they will need to spend more if they are to get us back to where we belong and meet our expectations. Their lack of football knowledge doesn't help at all, but they need to be willing to learn and deal with it, get their F***ing heads in the game or they shouldn't have bought a FOOTBALL CLUB in the first place. Only time will tell where their priorities lie.