Sugardaddy owners, anyone?

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.