NESV/Fenway Sports Group: Owners of LFC

Prior to Twit and tw*t robbing the club the club was owned by shareholders.I knew one lad who was a shareholder,the shares had been in his family for many years and it broke his heart when he was forced to relinquish them.I often wonder where we might be today if John Smith had not sold out to Moores.

I blame Parry as much, if not more.

Lazy c**t he was, couldn't even be arsed meeting Rafa at the airport.

Well we haven't so I guess the answer is there

And we all know about Fekir's knee but there are other players..  other players w haven't signed either as well as Alisson

🤷‍♂️

The money's there if Klopp wants to spend it.

I blame Parry as much, if not more.

Lazy c**t he was, couldn't even be arsed meeting Rafa at the airport.

Moores was the one who owned the majority of the shares so in my mind he is culpable.Also our decline as a club began when Moores  took over as major shareholder.

Moores was the one who owned the majority of the shares so in my mind he is culpable.Also our decline as a club began when Moores  took over as major shareholder.

I agree up to a point.

Moores hired Parry to run the club, and Parry turned out to be a lazy f**ker, and a penny pincher.
If Moores had anything about him, he would have sacked him, BUT Parry was in charge of the day to day running, and the finances, missing targets like Ronaldo and Vidic because he didn't want to shell out a few extra quid.

Both bad, both F***ing incompetent, both lazy.

Prior to Twit and T**t robbing the club the club was owned by shareholders.I knew one lad who was a shareholder,the shares had been in his family for many years and it broke his heart when he was forced to relinquish them.I often wonder where we might be today if John Smith had not sold out to Moores.

Big difference though being a shareholder owned private company and one that is listed as a publicly traded one such as the mancs.

Am not asking if anyone knows, just their opinion. What do you think?

Then yes, i believe the money would have been there for Alisson if we had purchased Fekir. I simply see no reason why the team would say no to Klopp if he wanted both. As i said, i'm not in the cynical camp who thinks it's all a big master plan where we only time purchases with sales of big players to be able to fund them, ie. we're only going to bid for Keita and Van Dijk because we'll be getting rid of Countinho.

I have also seen under Klopp that if he can't get who he wants, he does not jump into knee-jerk purchases because a transfer did not happen when it was expected. Cynics will say there are other players we could buy other than Fekir, but we saw in VVD's case that he rather wait instead of going after any other CB available at the time, so if Fekir hasn't happened, or does not happen, i don't have my head so far up my own ass to think that funds not being available is the only possible reason for it.

Then yes, i believe the money would have been there for Alisson if we had purchased Fekir. I simply see no reason why the team would say no to Klopp if he wanted both. As i said, i'm not in the cynical camp who thinks it's all a big master plan where we only time purchases with sales of big players to be able to fund them, ie. we're only going to bid for Keita and Van Dijk because we'll be getting rid of Countinho.

I have also seen under Klopp that if he can't get who he wants, he does not jump into knee-jerk purchases because a transfer did not happen when it was expected. Cynics will say there are other players we could buy other than Fekir, but we saw in VVD's case that he rather wait instead of going after any other CB available at the time, so if Fekir hasn't happened, or does not happen, i don't have my head so far up my own ass to think that funds not being available is the only possible reason for it.

The evidence this suggests that big spending (up until this season) has only occurred after, or with the knowledge that a big player has or will be sold.

As for Klopp wanting only his main targets, yes with VanDijk that certainly seems to be the case, but wasn't Salah a back up to an original target?

I clicked on this thread and 10 pages had been posted since I last visited a couple days ago. I saw one consistent poster and figured out why

The stubborn denial of our situation and rehashing of arguments made over five years ago shows there's always going to a section of people who will argue for the sake of it.

The anti-FSG brigade were adamant we'd be sold by now for the "quick buck". 8 years later and as some of us said many years ago - they make no decisions that imply they're going anywhere soon.

Everything is with a view of the long term. The contracts, the wages, the transfer fees, the management structures, the sponsorships, the personnel from football to office staff, etc. etc. etc.

They're here for good.

I would like them to treat an established profitable asset as such and promote it accordingly

In the actual long term everyone benefits from realistically backing the asset.
Not loaning the club money to actually benefit not only LFC but also the owners when they eventually sell on and profit unbelievably on their £260m initial outlay.

Have I stepped in to a time machine? You said this five years ago and even after everything that's happened, you still push this nonsense?

But what I will say is, you're 100% correct about everyone benefitting in the long-term from realistically backing their asset. After 8 years we're F***ing brilliant on the pitch, we kept our home and upgraded it, our accounts are in shape, we're worth roughly 4x what they bought us for and we just spent roughly £250m on five players to take us to the next level.

So with that in mind you hereby support our owners, eh? Sound.

The evidence this suggests that big spending (up until this season) has only occurred after, or with the knowledge that a big player has or will be sold.

As for Klopp wanting only his main targets, yes with VanDijk that certainly seems to be the case, but wasn't Salah a back up to an original target?

To Brandt who turned us down.

Gini was a back up to Gotze who snubbed us for Dortmund.

VVD and Alisson both signed as soon as we negotiated a fee with their club.

A bit different.

The money's there if Klopp wants to spend it.

You don't know that

I just go on what in front of my eyes when answering the questioning that was asked

In my opinion Stuey is saying this.

When we need to strengthen even if it means the owners shelling out £50m or more on top of our revenues and rather than having to sell players to fund the purchase then JUST DO IT after all they have a big unrealised profit they are sitting on and a bit of backing over and above their current strategy should go a long way to help in winning things.

That's my take and I agree with him.

In my opinion Stuey is saying this.

When we need to strengthen even if it means the owners shelling out £50m or more on top of our revenues and rather than having to sell players to fund the purchase then JUST DO IT after all they have a big unrealised profit they are sitting on and a bit of backing over and above their current strategy should go a long way to help in winning things.

That's my take and I agree with him.

The issue with his opinion is that he’s shifted the goalposts numerous times just to stay critical.

In my opinion Stuey is saying this.

When we need to strengthen even if it means the owners shelling out £50m or more on top of our revenues and rather than having to sell players to fund the purchase then JUST DO IT after all they have a big unrealised profit they are sitting on and a bit of backing over and above their current strategy should go a long way to help in winning things.

That's my take and I agree with him.

I think we'd all want that

But we know it's not going to happen

That would be ideal for us, it would be great but they won't and they always said they'd stick to the model they are running at

They are extremely sensible owners who are doing no damage to the club, we are fortunate that we have a vast turnover in comparison to other clubs to make it work to the best outcome ( because of the manager)

We may all agree with stuey that in an ideal world they'd throw more at it but they won't and never ever said they would.. in fact reading in the past few days this is exactly how they run the red sox too.
Nearly every single club in and around us do the same.. look at spurs fans, arsenal fans even Utds manager and their fans
They all complain cause they want more money spending but they spend what they generate too

As I said we may all agree ultimately but stuey just bangs on and on and then veers into other aspects that are not valid and make literally no sense to the argument
Complaining that because the club is worth more than they brought it for that they should give that to the club
That is not why they're here.. if you go back then even at a bargain price some of the fsg shareholders didn't want to get into English football.. but we're convinced they could make a big return.. That's business and yet have but they aren't going to throw that away because that their profit for putting the money up in the first place.. for taking their perceived gamble.. for putting their money in

Think of it as you buying a house.

For simple terms you buy it 10 years ago for 100k and then now it's worth 250k.. you may well it in another 5 years at 300k

That's your profit isn't it? That's your reward for putting the money down in the first place?
You wouldn't give 50k of your profit to the tenant would you? Just because they want it?

We love the club, we want to win things.. they're rich investors who run it like a business and not a charity

It's risk and reward.. throwing an extra 100m on transfers isn't going to guarantee winning a  league for them, and even if we won it then they wouldn't get that 100m back in prize money

I may not agree, I may want what stuey wants, I may not be their biggest fan ( I'm not) but I can see what is going to happen and what's not

I'm very much middle of the road on it all.. I understand we have a budget, I understand when it gone it's gone which as we stand now it looks like it is unless we sell off some of the fringe players

I'm.not deluded enough to think that more money is definitely there if the manger wants it, because I don't think it is unless sales are made.. to the level of total wage bills etc etc to be taken into consideration too.

Alisson means a Fekir won't unless there are some shifted

But that's their model and it's not worth expecting different

I think we'd all want that

But we know it's not going to happen

That would be ideal for us, it would be great but they won't and they always said they'd stick to the model they are running at

They are extremely sensible owners who are doing no damage to the club, we are fortunate that we have a vast turnover in comparison to other clubs to make it work to the best outcome ( because of the manager)

We may all agree with stuey that in an ideal world they'd throw more at it but they won't and never ever said they would.. in fact reading in the past few days this is exactly how they run the red sox too.
Nearly every single club in and around us do the same.. look at spurs fans, arsenal fans even Utds manager and their fans
They all complain cause they want more money spending but they spend what they generate too

As I said we may all agree ultimately but stuey just bangs on and on and then veers into other aspects that are not valid and make literally no sense to the argument
Complaining that because the club is worth more than they brought it for that they should give that to the club
That is not why they're here.. if you go back then even at a bargain price some of the fsg shareholders didn't want to get into English football.. but we're convinced they could make a big return.. That's business and yet have but they aren't going to throw that away because that their profit for putting the money up in the first place.. for taking their perceived gamble.. for putting their money in

Think of it as you buying a house.

For simple terms you buy it 10 years ago for 100k and then now it's worth 250k.. you may well it in another 5 years at 300k

That's your profit isn't it? That's your reward for putting the money down in the first place?
You wouldn't give 50k of your profit to the tenant would you? Just because they want it?

We love the club, we want to win things.. they're rich investors who run it like a business and not a charity

It's risk and reward.. throwing an extra 100m on transfers isn't going to guarantee winning a  league for them, and even if we won it then they wouldn't get that 100m back in prize money

I may not agree, I may want what stuey wants, I may not be their biggest fan ( I'm not) but I can see what is going to happen and what's not

I'm very much middle of the road on it all.. I understand we have a budget, I understand when it gone it's gone which as we stand now it looks like it is unless we sell off some of the fringe players

I'm.not deluded enough to think that more money is definitely there if the manger wants it, because I don't think it is unless sales are made.. to the level of total wage bills etc etc to be taken into consideration too.

Alisson means a Fekir won't unless there are some shifted

But that's their model and it's not worth expecting different

I go back to the times we had T.V.Williams and John Smith who were major shareholders in the club.They were major shareholders  not for profit but for their love of LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB.We also had the brilliant Peter Robinson looking after the club finances.This club would not of had the successes it had in the 1960s/70s and 80s without the involvement of those people.Those people were also responsible for the superb managerial appointments of Bill Shankly,Bob Paisley,Joe Fagan and Kenny Dalglish.

I go back to the times we had T.V.Williams and John Smith who were major shareholders in the club.They were major shareholders  not for profit but for their love of LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB.We also had the brilliant Peter Robinson looking after the club finances.This club would not of had the successes it had in the 1960s/70s and 80s without the involvement of those people.Those people were also responsible for the superb managerial appointments of Bill Shankly,Bob Paisley,Joe Fagan and Kenny Dalglish.

With the absolute greatest respect in the world Billy I don't see the relevance of that in modern football sorry

With the absolute greatest respect in the world Billy I don't see the relevance of that in modern football sorry

The point I was trying to make was that those men invested in the club because of their love for the club not financial gain.

I go back to the times we had T.V.Williams and John Smith who were major shareholders in the club.They were major shareholders  not for profit but for their love of LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB.We also had the brilliant Peter Robinson looking after the club finances.This club would not of had the successes it had in the 1960s/70s and 80s without the involvement of those people.Those people were also responsible for the superb managerial appointments of Bill Shankly,Bob Paisley,Joe Fagan and Kenny Dalglish.

there was a connection between the board the manager the players and the fans. There is now a disconnect between the Board and the rest of the club as the board seem to pursue a financial objective and don't really have any interest in football. There was a common objective in having a successful football team as that took care of finances. Good competent people regardless of any era the bedrock of any successful enterprise. Having won 1 trophy in 12 years is down to that awful decision made by Parry and Moores to sell to Twit and tw*t who were so completely different in every way to the people you list above. 11years on we now have a squad built largely by Jürgen but built with good people who happen to be great footballers just exactly the same as Shankly did 60 years ago.

The point I was trying to make was that those men invested in the club because of their love for the club not financial gain.

But that's the point mate.. money has ruined football..  people who love Liverpool can't compete in this modern football world

As I said to stuey yesterday these 'money issues' with the board aren't a new thing even back in those days

Shanks threatened to quit every year over finances, over not being given all the players he wanted.
He made many what are now famous quotes about the board only being there to sign cheques
The holy trinity not including the money men

It's naive to  think it's a new thing but now in the modern football world those financial issues are multiplied thousands of times over and the gane is flooded with sugar daddies who want to financially dope the game even more

Someone running the club who loves it will likely not even be able to compete to fsg levels unfortunately

there was a connection between the board the manager the players and the fans.

Again is that why Shankly said what he said about the board and offered his resignation on a regular basis?

The money men have always been the same but the money now is far far bigger

Where you mention about trophies being the bedrock of a successful club.. again not now unfortunately..  because the commercial side and prize money for finishing top 4 and getting cl football money.. tv money
It all outweighs winning cups now

That's why money has ruined football

there was a connection between the board the manager the players and the fans. There is now a disconnect between the Board and the rest of the club as the board seem to pursue a financial objective and don't really have any interest in football. There was a common objective in having a successful football team as that took care of finances. Good competent people regardless of any era the bedrock of any successful enterprise. Having won 1 trophy in 12 years is down to that awful decision made by Parry and Moores to sell to Twit and tw*t who were so completely different in every way to the people you list above. 11years on we now have a squad built largely by Jürgen but built with good people who happen to be great footballers just exactly the same as Shankly did 60 years ago.

This just isn’t true, Walt. Not for a long time. Even when the pitchforks were out during the Rodgers era they were putting in place their strategy and all it took was a competent manager to help execute.

FSG brought in middle-men to bridge the gap between the manager and them and added expert opinions in places where they weren’t qualified.

That includes Michael Edwards who appears to have a superb relationship with Jürgen.

That’s why they were willing to spend a quarter of a billion pounds on the squad this summer.

Coutinho transfer or not, we saw how it could go wrong after selling Luis and we have the men in place now to execute a unified strategy that, most importantly, our manager backs and if we are to give him utmost credit for what he’s done then surely we must also trust him and his belief in our ownership/structures?

Truth is, we never see or hear from the owners more than a handful of times a season. I remember the old adage of “they only exist to sign the cheques” and that’s all they’ve done.

This stereotype that exists around the owners is so outdated. All it takes is a little bit of digging to see why they’re more than adequate owners.

But that's the point mate.. money has ruined football..  people who love Liverpool can't compete in this modern football world

As I said to stuey yesterday these 'money issues' with the board aren't a new thing even back in those days

Shanks threatened to quit every year over finances, over not being given all the players he wanted.
He made many what are now famous quotes about the board only being there to sign cheques
The holy trinity not including the money men

It's naive to  think it's a new thing but now in the modern football world those financial issues are multiplied thousands of times over and the gane is flooded with sugar daddies who want to financially dope the game even more

Someone running the club who loves it will likely not even be able to compete to fsg levels unfortunately

Again is that why Shankly said what he said about the board and offered his resignation on a regular basis?

The money men have always been the same but the money now is far far bigger

Where you mention about trophies being the bedrock of a successful club.. again not now unfortunately..  because the commercial side and prize money for finishing top 4 and getting cl football money.. tv money
It all outweighs winning cups now

That's why money has ruined football

This is my last words on this,I for one don't recall Bill Shankly threatening to resign on a regular basis.To say it was a shock when he did resign would be an understatement.Also I recall record buys for youngsters the likes of Alun Evans and the Mighty Emlyn Hughes as well as others.The Shankly quote about  the board are only there to sign the cheques is well documented.

Not quite sure how we've got on to this but let's clear it up.

I for one don't recall Bill Shankly threatening to resign on a regular basis.

Different times back then.  Why would you have heard the inner goings on from inside the Anfield boardroom?

Liverpool's chief executive, Peter Robinson, and the Anfield board of directors had grown so used to Bill Shankly threatening to resign as to become blasé about it. A 1967 resignation letter sat in Robinson's filing cabinet, unretracted. Every summer, during the long football-less months, a kind of depression consumed Shankly. Put simply, he could not live without his daily fix of football. In these moments of despair he would talk of "finishing", of walking out on the club and retiring. Then the players returned for pre-season training and the despondency lifted and Shankly was his ebullient self again.

Not normally a man to harbour grudges, he seemed to have been governed by a different set of principles in his dealings with the boardroom. In 1962, for instance, Johnny Morrissey was sold to Everton without Shankly's knowledge, and more than a decade later he was still furious about it. The 1967 resignation letter was written after he lost out on the signing of Howard Kendall by Everton. Again, Shankly blamed the board and stormed out of Anfield. He stayed away for a few days before returning, and even then sullenly refused to retract his resignation letter, while carrying on his work.

"I used to fight and argue and fight and argue and fight and argue until I thought, 'Is it worthwhile all this fighting and arguing?'" Shankly said. "It is bad enough fighting against the opposition to win points but the internal fights to make people realise what we were working for took me close to leaving many times."

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/oct/18/bill-shankly-liverpool-manager

I think we'd all want that

But we know it's not going to happen

That would be ideal for us, it would be great but they won't and they always said they'd stick to the model they are running at

They are extremely sensible owners who are doing no damage to the club, we are fortunate that we have a vast turnover in comparison to other clubs to make it work to the best outcome ( because of the manager)

We may all agree with stuey that in an ideal world they'd throw more at it but they won't and never ever said they would.. in fact reading in the past few days this is exactly how they run the red sox too.
Nearly every single club in and around us do the same.. look at spurs fans, arsenal fans even Utds manager and their fans
They all complain cause they want more money spending but they spend what they generate too

As I said we may all agree ultimately but stuey just bangs on and on and then veers into other aspects that are not valid and make literally no sense to the argument
Complaining that because the club is worth more than they brought it for that they should give that to the club
That is not why they're here.. if you go back then even at a bargain price some of the fsg shareholders didn't want to get into English football.. but we're convinced they could make a big return.. That's business and yet have but they aren't going to throw that away because that their profit for putting the money up in the first place.. for taking their perceived gamble.. for putting their money in

Think of it as you buying a house.

For simple terms you buy it 10 years ago for 100k and then now it's worth 250k.. you may well it in another 5 years at 300k

That's your profit isn't it? That's your reward for putting the money down in the first place?
You wouldn't give 50k of your profit to the tenant would you? Just because they want it?

We love the club, we want to win things.. they're rich investors who run it like a business and not a charity

It's risk and reward.. throwing an extra 100m on transfers isn't going to guarantee winning a  league for them, and even if we won it then they wouldn't get that 100m back in prize money

I may not agree, I may want what stuey wants, I may not be their biggest fan ( I'm not) but I can see what is going to happen and what's not

I'm very much middle of the road on it all.. I understand we have a budget, I understand when it gone it's gone which as we stand now it looks like it is unless we sell off some of the fringe players

I'm.not deluded enough to think that more money is definitely there if the manger wants it, because I don't think it is unless sales are made.. to the level of total wage bills etc etc to be taken into consideration too.

Alisson means a Fekir won't unless there are some shifted

But that's their model and it's not worth expecting different

Is it really unrealistic to expect them to change their way of thinking...?

remember when  they only wanted to buy young players cheap with resalable value... Then change their mind on that
Remember when they wanted to raise the ticket prices...? Change that too
so If we countinue to let then know how we feel about this then maybe we have a change of heart here too

I clicked on this thread and 10 pages had been posted since I last visited a couple days ago. I saw one consistent poster and figured out why

The stubborn denial of our situation and rehashing of arguments made over five years ago shows there's always going to a section of people who will argue for the sake of it.

The anti-FSG brigade were adamant we'd be sold by now for the "quick buck". 8 years later and as some of us said many years ago - they make no decisions that imply they're going anywhere soon.

There are some who became disillusioned after the majority of FSG tenure had the club in unfamiliar placing in the league consistently well behind the top teams, loss of status and more importantly failure to compete successfully in tournaments led to a drastic shortfall in the rewards of success.
Backward seeming decisions confirming that somebody in an elevated position had no clue about soccer.

JWH admitted FSG had made mistakes in the first 3 or 4 years but the mistakes kept happening.
This dereliction of a perfectly viable asset by a professed successful entrepreneur did warrant criticism, not the rabid, hysterical reaction that you suggest.

I for one have never suggested JWH&Co are in this for a "fast buck" and would appreciate some verification of your claim.

Everything is with a view of the long term. The contracts, the wages, the transfer fees, the management structures, the sponsorships, the personnel from football to office staff, etc. etc. etc.

JWH has spoken of the long term and with reference to contracts, wages along with the various etc's you neglect to mention his implication that LFC would once again see the glory years it was so used to in the past; of course the common perception was that a multi-billionaire had the resources to help the prospect materialise.
It was something of a shock when the comment was modified with the added phrase that he would not part with his own dish!

In other words he had confidence enough in the model to leave it to generate capital and plod along providing a level of consistent improvement, that being said why not show commitment and improve the model with more funding enhancing that consistent improvement.

They're here for good.

Have I stepped in to a time machine? You said this five years ago and even after everything that's happened, you still push this nonsense?

But what I will say is, you're 100% correct about everyone benefitting in the long-term from realistically backing their asset. After 8 years we're F***ing brilliant on the pitch, we kept our home and upgraded it, our accounts are in shape, we're worth roughly 4x what they bought us for and we just spent roughly £250m on five players to take us to the next level.

So with that in mind you hereby support our owners, eh? Sound.

The progress made by LFC is as JWH&Co visualised - a self sustaining asset requiring little or no input and will at the end of a specific time scale prove a profitable venture for the company.

They are not here ad infinitum, they will sell up when they feel their holding has reached a favourable level for a sell off and provide a good return for them and their backers.
 
Why should I support JWH&Co?
They are in no need of assistance in enhancing the holding on their behalf.