NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

You refer to a particular time scale prior to which we held the most league titles won and currently hold the CL/European Cup UK record with trophies. unsurpassed by the mancs or whoever..
Have a at that bollox.

Yes and then we took our eye off the ball and almost 30 years later we still haven't won another title and have been well and truly pushed off our perch by Man Utd, although we are finally starting to make up some ground to them.
It wasn't until FSG came in that we started realising our commercial potential and that of course leads to higher revenues which leads to higher transfers which leads to better players which leads to more success. What's not to like about all that?

I keep seeing this. 'They've smashed the transfer record for a GK' and 'They've smashed the transfer record for a cb'.

The money was there from player sales and the players signed for us because of Klopp. NOT FSG.

If we still had Rodgers in charge or somebody of that calibre then those statements wouldn't exist because the players would never have signed.

Instead of spending 60 on Alisson then we would have spent 40 on butland and used the extra 20 to sign Shawcross.  And instead of spending 75 on Virgil we would have spent 40 on lascelles and used the other 35 to sign mark noble.

Yeah, I'm fully in agreement that Klopp is a great manager and he is a significant reason why players have chosen to come to us recently. Do you think Klopp would have joined us, or would be sticking with us, if he did not like the owners and believe in their work?

... and dumping the previous manager was the start of getting things under way.

I am not concerned about when Jürgen goes. 
I can see Stevie coming in alongside him to start with and then as his successor.

Sounds like a plan although its all conjecture on my part.

Would be a tad concerned if Jürgen got off Skip, the teams tripping over each other to sign him up is proof enough of the extraordinary dynamism he possesses.

What is weird though is earlier there was some stuff on the footy text about Stevie rebuilding the Rangers team and the thought of him carrying out his apprenticeship for the top job at Anfield came to mind.
Talk about Fairy Tale endings.

So why, up until this window, where we on a negative net spend under klopps reign and reducing the wage bill?

The revenue has increased but we still only invest on whatever we make from player sales. 

That's because the stadium expansion and other work in developing the club's infrastructure costs money and also needs to be paid for.

Living beyond our means was never the right approach - 'we still only invest on whatever we make from player sales' - ask Leeds fans what they think about spending money the club hasn't got.

Why couldn't we attract them when we were in the champions league with Brendan then?

I said earlier that 99% of the time money talks in football but fortunately for us we are in that tiny 1% who have a manager who players are dying to play for.

If klopp moved clubs, other players would go with him.  If we had pulis, then we aren't signing anybody of note. Just like we couldn't with Brendan. Or Kenny.

Cough cough Suarez and Coutinho cough cough players of note.

So the manager only exerts 1% of influence then, in that case what in the name of F**k are you banging on about with Jürgen being so important then? especially when we have just shelled out 2 record breaking transfer sums, and no it doesn't matter where that money came from it was still paid out.

I keep seeing this. 'They've smashed the transfer record for a GK' and 'They've smashed the transfer record for a cb'.

The money was there from player sales and the players signed for us because of Klopp. NOT FSG.

If we still had Rodgers in charge or somebody of that calibre then those statements wouldn't exist because the players would never have signed.

Instead of spending 60 on Alisson then we would have spent 40 on butland and used the extra 20 to sign Shawcross.  And instead of spending 75 on Virgil we would have spent 40 on lascelles and used the other 35 to sign mark noble.

Klopp deserves every bit of credit for the players we've signed. We saw the mess under Kenny and Brendan and if klopp decides to move on we are likely to see it all unfold once again depeding on who we appoint.

The keeper fee and CB fee were monies from transfers, with years of patchwork signings and journey men brought into the team that was a bite the arse scenario where neglecting to address the problem adequately could only see the implications multiply.

Its quite clear what I'm saying.

We sell players and whatever we get for them is the budget to reinvest. The manager can do what he wants with it.

Klopp has spent big sums on big players. He has convinced them to join us over other clubs who were interested.

Other managers don't have that effect. If we had Rodgers still then he couldn't sign Alisson. Instead, we'd have a butland for half the fee and then the rest of the budget would be spent on some dross like joe Allen.

I can assure you almost nothing you say is clear.

Anyway so we sell Coutinho for £140m, we then buy VVD for £75m, Alisson for £65m, Keita for £56m, Fabinho for £40m and Shaquiri for £13m (approx). That looks like quite a lot more than the Coutinho money, actually it looks like almost £110m more, where on earth did that money come from??

you missed one
John W Henry's new £68m super-yacht  https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/take-look-liverpool-fc-owner-12230189 

Unless you're suggesting the yacht was paid for by LFC, how is that even remotely relevant to the question of whether or not FSG have invested in the club?

That's because the stadium expansion and other work in developing the club's infrastructure costs money and also needs to be paid for.

Living beyond our means was never the right approach - 'we still only invest on whatever we make from player sales' - ask Leeds fans what they think about spending money the club hasn't got.

Ask the mancs who had biggest debt factor but because of on field success are able to address the debt year on year.
Even now when they are under the cosh they can still pay the debt and are one of the richest clubs in the world?.

Ask the mancs who had biggest debt factor but because of on field success are able to address the debt year on year.
Even now when they are under the cosh they can still pay the debt and are one of the richest clubs in the world?.

yes they survive now easily, but lets say they are outside the top 4 for a few years, which is not impossible, then the sponsorship and commercial revenues start to dip, it doesn't take long before that debt is biting you in the arse and then its a slippery slope.
Oh well I can dream can't I ;-)

You refer to a particular time scale prior to which we held the most league titles won and currently hold the CL/European Cup UK record with trophies. unsurpassed by the mancs or whoever..
Have a at that bollox.

When was the last time we won the league? 1990 isn't it?

it's 2018, stop living in the past. Football has evolved and changed. We haven't won the league since that time because we didn't change our ways since the 80s under Moores hence why we lost league record to Man Utd. You're in denial if you believe our model was successful before the arrival of our new owners. Houllier and Rafa were great managers and won us a couple of trophies but they also failed to win the league because Moores couldn't back them up with a decent transfer kitty.

You don't understand the point.

The money was there from player sales. We've just sold coutinho for 140m.

FSG have always given our managers the money back to re-invest into the team from whatever we make from player sales.

The difference with klopp to Brendan or Kenny is, instead of using the money to buy several average players for smaller fees, he buys one or two for higher fees who are world class. That's because Jürgen can convince those players to play for us.

Brendan Rodgers couldn't do that. He tried to convince top players to play for us but they weren't interested. It was exactly the same model as what Jürgen is working under now.

Rodgers had all of the suarez fee which at the time was a lot of money, but no decent player wanted to play for him so instead we signed several poor players who were just dross in all honesty and should never have played for Liverpool.

If klopp was in that position he would have signed 1 or 2 players, a like for like for suarez, somebody of much better quality.

Look at one of my posts above. I asked another poster a question and I'll ask you the same.  If klopp moved on and we appointed tony pulis, do you think we could still sign players as good as Keita, Virgil, Alisson if we sold salah for example and had money to burn?  Do you think we would break transfer records with tony pulis in charge yes or no?

For me, it's a fat f**king no. Because nobody would want to play for that little tit unless you threw a sh*t load of money at them so they couldn't possibly refuse. Something FSG haven't done.

Without klopp, trust me, we're fu**ed.

Signing VVD and Keita had nothing to do with Coutinho sale because we bought both of them before we sold Coutinho, you also have no shred of evidence to prove otherwise. It's just assumptions from your part.

For argument's sake, let's say every penny were from player sales so why is it relevant? how is that a horrible thing? I remember the argument on here when Rodgers was buying sh*te players that it was FSG's fault and how cheapskates they were for not giving Rodgers money. They made Alisson and VVD the highest earners, how can you say FSG don't want to put a lot of money in players? They also offered Coutinho sh*t load of money (even Klopp admited that) but he refused. You're just assuming things.

No one is denying Klopp is the real deal, he's fantastic and he is attracting a lot of players to the club, but again he isn't the one with money, the owners are and they are the one supporting him with it. That's what every supporter want, the club owners supporting the manager in the transfer market.

How else would it be paid?

Not the point in question.
Some of the misguided suggest FSG are responsible for improvemens such as extending An field when in fact they loaned the club money to facilitate the extension.

When was the last time we won the league? 1990 isn't it?

it's 2018, stop living in the past. Football has evolved and changed. We haven't won the league since that time because we didn't change our ways since the 80s under Moores hence why we lost league record to Man Utd. You're in denial if you believe our model was successful before the arrival of our new owners. Houllier and Rafa were great managers and won us a couple of trophies but they also failed to win the league because Moores couldn't back them up with a decent transfer kitty.

Signing VVD and Keita had nothing to do with Coutinho sale because we bought both of them before we sold Coutinho, you also have no shred of evidence to prove otherwise. It's just assumptions from your part.

For argument's sake, let's say every penny were from player sales so why is it relevant? how is that a horrible thing? I remember the argument on here when Rodgers was buying sh*te players that it was FSG's fault and how cheapskates they were for not giving Rodgers money. They made Alisson and VVD the highest earners, how can you say FSG don't want to put a lot of money in players? They also offered Coutinho sh*t load of money (even Klopp admited that) but he refused. You're just assuming things.

No one is denying Klopp is the real deal, he's fantastic and he is attracting a lot of players to the club, but again he isn't the one with money, the owners are and they are the one supporting him with it. That's what every supporter want, the club owners supporting the manager in the transfer market.

Have a word with yourself.

Have a word with yourself.

I suggest you grab a mirror and do the same, you have reached new levels of wummery or idiocy today, can't quite decide which but I suggest you stop.

Have a word with yourself.

typical stuey, when faced with facts react with ad hominem argument

Ask the mancs who had biggest debt factor but because of on field success are able to address the debt year on year.
Even now when they are under the cosh they can still pay the debt and are one of the richest clubs in the world?.

That's because they developed the commercial side of their club well over a decade before we even bothered to start developing ours … that's been the main point of what FSG have been trying to do since they took on the club! It's because we gave them over a decade head start that we are still playing catch up

So we can discount the 5 trophies won under Houlier or the Champions league in 2005 followed by super cup and FA Cup in 2006 all under Moores ownership and then what has happened in the last 11 years since the 2007 Cl final under Moores 1 league cup in 2012 with Kenny which he got the sack for.
If you think football has developed you obviously never heard of Bill Shankly and how he wanted football to be played which would and is still copied today but under a modern slant tiki taka or some such bollox.
FSG got lucky with hiring Jürgen and selling Torres, Suarez and Couthino unless someone tells me this is some master plan they came in with of course.

Not the point in question.
Some of the misguided suggest FSG are responsible for improvemens such as extending An field when in fact they loaned the club money to facilitate the extension.

It's widely recognised by sources who aren't part of LFC / FSG that the interest rates on those loans are very favourable and we'd have struggled to get similar rates elsewhere. It's a business and FSG are accountable to their shareholders in other branches of the business. It's not some fantasy lala-land scenario where work that costs over £100 million just happens magically.

I asked you how else the club should pay for this and you replied that wasn't the point. I disagree - it's entirely the point. If not through the club's funds and borrowing from FSG, how else does this get paid for?

F***ing hell, come back from Camino, and the same people are still arguing the same sh*t.

A couple of small points - the "loan" to the club for the extension accrues interest of 0.5% (for tax purposes) and hasn't been taken out of the club. It sits on the books, and Mike Gordon (who used the loan to increase his equity in the club) can either take a loan repayment or increased share of any future sale. Considering the loan has just sat there for a few years now, it looks like he's taking the latter option.

Next point is that John Henry has sod all to do with running the club now. He concentrates on baseball.
Mike Gordon is the 2nd largest shareholder in FSG, and increased his holdings so he could take over the running of the club.

Finally, can people stop with this sh*t that they try to push where they say "we sold players to finance purchases".
If anyone can name one player that was forced out of the door, sold against their will, rather than the reality of 3 players acting the c**t to get big money moves, I'm all ears.

That's because they developed the commercial side of their club well over a decade before we even bothered to start developing ours … that's been the main point of what FSG have been trying to do since they took on the club! It's because we gave them over a decade head start that we are still playing catch up

A convenient contradiction.
We are told FSG have made our club a financial success in the time they have been here yet when the rewards of financial success are pointed out elsewhere we are supposedly playing "catch up" and cannot afford the same expenditure.
Another "long term" projection maybe?

So we can discount the 5 trophies won under Houlier or the Champions league in 2005 followed by super cup and FA Cup in 2006 all under Moores ownership and then what has happened in the last 11 years since the 2007 Cl final under Moores 1 league cup in 2012 with Kenny which he got the sack for.
If you think football has developed you obviously never heard of Bill Shankly and how he wanted football to be played which would and is still copied today but under a modern slant tiki taka or some such bollox.
FSG got lucky with hiring Jürgen and selling Torres, Suarez and Couthino unless someone tells me this is some master plan they came in with of course.

On the pitch, I agree that football remains similar to how it was in Shankly's time. Off the pitch however, it is very different - and this discussion is really more about that side of things. We need money to be competitive on the pitch and to get the money we need a strong commercial arm to the club.

F***ing hell, come back from Camino, and the same people are still arguing the same sh*t.

A couple of small points - the "loan" to the club for the extension accrues interest of 0.5% (for tax purposes) and hasn't been taken out of the club. It sits on the books, and Mike Gordon (who used the loan to increase his equity in the club) can either take a loan repayment or increased share of any future sale. Considering the loan has just sat there for a few years now, it looks like he's taking the latter option.

Next point is that John Henry has sod all to do with running the club now. He concentrates on baseball.
Mike Gordon is the 2nd largest shareholder in FSG, and increased his holdings so he could take over the running of the club.

Finally, can people stop with this sh*t that they try to push where they say "we sold players to finance purchases".
If anyone can name one player that was forced out of the door, sold against their will, rather than the reality of 3 players acting the c**t to get big money moves, I'm all ears.

Welcome back mate

Welcome back mate

All walked out - Camino was brilliant, but tiring.
2,000km over about 12 weeks.