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