Qatari company seek to Sponsor LFC and rename Anfield (?)

For those who bang on about Chelsea selling their soul for Romans billions, what is different about doing this? To me it's worse. 120 years of history, sold down the river and then expect to be grateful for it?

Great point, well made Willy. 

I'm a bit divided on this issue as a lot of people appear to be , the biggest problem is people want us to compete on one hand but don't want deals like this on the other so it is really a delicate balancing act. I stick to my thought that if the team is successful on the pitch people don't take much notice of what's happening off it, just look at Manure, not many anti Glazer protests recently. FSG are looking to increase investment in the club which is badly needed, sadly at the moment progress on and off the pitch is very very slow

The Glazers are a perfect example, they are detached completely from their investment however the infrastructure is in place to negate any detrimental factors with that arrangement.
In other words the mancs don't give a sh*t about what planet their owners reside as long as manUre are picking up trophies.
The Glazers do not interfere with the executive structure of the club, do not hire and fire managers nor do they pressure the manager to make false economies with squad numbers.

I didn't say quick cash.. You did.. I said they want a good profit from us and that's the only reason they are here..

I have nothing against America or Americans.. I happen to like a lot about the culture, spent a week of my honeymoon there.. Go regularly to what I class as the best city in the world..

However American businessmen in English football is a disaster.. They are only here to make money and that annoys me.
FSG brought us for one reason, they saw a bargain and a way to make money..

I dont think Kenny should have been sacked and I do think they are clowns.. But not because of Kenny, that's just another reason.

I'm sure you are well aware that the argument you present over players is daft.

I don't like FSG no... But I have nothing against where they come from at all.. I just wish they were nowhere near the football club. Two American sets of owners have put us firmly in midtable with not much chance of getting out of it under these..
As I said earlier FSG see us as weetabix no less than Tom Hicks did..

I have no interest in arguing with you though.. You have your view, I respect it even if I don't agree.. I have mine which I won't change.. I've given FSG 3 years.. They have done nothing to get us moving forward.. They are dragging their feet over every key decision and getting the majority of the ones they do make wrong.

Where did PD say he wanted an Oligarch or billionaire to take this up as his own little hobby. All he wants and I'd suggest 90% of the Liverpool fan base want is an owner who has some heart invested in the club.

You're statement that
Is based on a complete assumption and you blissfully sit within that assumption happy and content that all is well in the world and the direction we're heading is slow, steady, but progressive.

Well I demand more from an owner than to run LFC only as a business, because I don't support a business I support a football club which is steeped in tradition and history, something your friend seems to claim Americans don't value yet take a trip near anywhere with history or tradition and you can't move for Americans as it's something your country doesn't have and has to seek elsewhere. (not a criticism just an observation)

Your assumption also removes any doubt that everything is being operated above board and honestly. Well need I remind you that these owners have already proven themselves to be liars, I'm not in the habit of believing proven liars, no matter how well they try to spin the facts. I believe this years accounts will make difficult reading for any pro-FSG supporters because the £20m (rumoured) that we are likely to spend this summer will not nearly be reinvesting what we've made on the current financial year. In fact they will be repaying the debts they were left with when the club was bought and have invested so far + interest. This was acquisition debt that we were told had been removed from the club on purchase, however stadium plans suddenly added to that debt tremendously and then player acquisitions + severance packages were added to that debt. Hardly the behaviour of smart, nor honest businessmen.

As for their ambition to maximise the money they can make from the club, as long as they can progress slowly towards CL football and grow revenue streams then they wont be making a mid-table football club they'll be making a long term investment and to hell with the ambitions of the captive fan base as long as they keep passing over the money. Their treatment of the fan base is already showing it's ugly head on the restructuring of the ticket prices in the main stand and charging the top price for a seat with restricted view and shocking facilities. Their excuse for handling this "we had to start somewhere and this is what our competition does." So this is more than likely down to their fantastic communication they have with the Scum and the like. What they don't realise and don't 'get' is this club always valued it's fans more highly than other clubs and we in turn had a greater commitment to the club in my opinion and already the layers of that allegiance are being stripped at.

All this the work of smart businessmen, no, simply greedy businessmen who have no care, nor love for the brand, simply the dollar.

Two outstanding posts there.

What's happening in ''HIGHBURY'' these days? Even the''DELL''?. Simply erased from history due to tv coverage.Will our next generation ask ''ANFIELD''?.

The last set of owners who had "heart" and "loved the club" nearly detroyed the us by allowing us to fall so far behind United, then Arsenal , then Chelsea and Man City then selling us to H&G and paving the way t oget rid of the most successful manager we've had since Kenny was first here.

Would prefer smart owners who have a plan to get us back on on our feet ta very much - despite the derision they've had, FSG appear to be doing that - and playing attractive football along the way with (what may turn out to be) the best player ever to have played for us.

I'm definitely prepared to give them more time - they have done a good job sp far. Next step - sorting out the stadium.

I want to make it clear for those who just read one line and jump to conclusions I am not saying FSG are the same as H&G..
What I'm saying is they don't see us as anything other than a brand to make money from.. The same as H&G did.. They may have different methods but essentially to them both we are nothing other than something they saw an opportunity to make profit by buying.

Tom Hicks may just have been blunter but it amounts to the same thing in the long term for both.

But that's not comparing them as owners

H&G gambled... The world markets crashed and they drowned, had the markets not crashed? 
Their methods would still have upset the fans though.

FSG aren't gamblers, they see the way to drive us forward as a slower process.. But success by their methods in my opinion won't happen..

But end game for both was/is selling the club and turning their initial investment into profit.

What the clubs you mention have got is a large  number of sponsors backing them, do you honestly think United haven't considered naming rights for OT, they'll sell their own gran to make a few quid.

I don't think their support would stand for renaming Old Trafford any more than most of us won't have it for Anfield.

The simple fact is a the moment there aren't likely to be any takers for the club

There is no way of saying that for certain.

I want to make it clear for those who just read one line and jump to conclusions I am not saying FSG are the same as H&G..
What I'm saying is they don't see us as anything other than a brand to make money from.. The same as H&G did.. They may have different methods but essentially to them both we are nothing other than something they saw an opportunity to make profit by buying.

I'd actually slightly disagree with that but at the same time, say that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that if done properly. FSG see us as a Brand to make money from but what separates them from H&G is FSG know the brand has been mismanaged for years (and I'm not simply referring to H&G) and that they will have to work hard and manage the brand correctly if they're to make their money. H&G thought they could just stroll in, sit back and let the brand work for them and that's what got us in the mess we where in.

But end game for both was/is selling the club and turning their initial investment into profit.

I fear (and believe) that at this point in time, there are only two types of owners.....

1) Looking to make a profit either long term or short term (FSG likely fall into this one?)
2) Want to own a football club as a status symbol or as a toy that they will likely one day get tired of (Sheiks, Oil Tycoons, etc...?)

I'm still trying to determine if there's actually a club owner out there that is in it for the right reasons AND whose club is successful because of it. 

I fear (and believe) that at this point in time, there are only two types of owners.....

1) Looking to make a profit either long term or short term (FSG likely fall into this one?)
2) Want to own a football club as a status symbol or as a toy that they will likely one day get tired of (Sheiks, Oil Tycoons, etc...?)

I'm still trying to determine if there's actually a club owner out there that is in it for the right reasons AND whose club is successful because of it. 

You are likely right about that

I've also said numerous times that football has changed for the worse with the influx of money.. Which isn't FSGs fault obviously..
The fact that they are here just to get a slice of that money gripes me and their long list of mistakes and broken promises..

All I'm saying is I am convinced that we won't be successful under FSG. I'd love to be proved wrong I just don't think I will be.

I'm still trying to determine if there's actually a club owner out there that is in it for the right reasons AND whose club is successful because of it. 

Huw Jenkins of Swansea City. In it for the right reasons and sensible enough to know what is achievable. They may not be successful yet but they've won a trophy this Season, more than we have.

In all honesty he knows that Swansea may not stay in the Premier League for long but you have to admire the fact he's not prepared to load the Club with debt to maintain that status.

As much as i hate Swansea City i have nothing but respect for the way they run their Club and the Swans supporters are very modest and humble fans.

They are a very tight knit Club and you have to have that closeness to the supporters, after all they are the ones who keep the Club going.

Something that John Henry and Co. have failed to grasp. You can't manage a Club like ours from a distance, you have to be there on a regular basis. It doesn't matter that they have employed certain people for certain jobs, it's their distancing from fans when bad decisions have been made that have pissed me off.

there are only two types of owners.....


2) Want to own a football club as a status symbol or as a toy that they will likely one day get tired of (Sheiks, Oil Tycoons, etc...?)

To be fair to young master Roman at Chelsea; he's been there ten years now and his interest shows no sign of waning. Add to that the trophies, global recognition and prestige he's brought to the club and it might hint at there maybe being a third type of owner. Oh and he does seem to attend an awful lot of games; more than most 'fans' I'd say.

This type of owner may be as rare as tits on a bull but it seems they still exist.

Not that you were F.L. but Roman Abramovich tends to get ridiculed (more in hope than fact) for being someone who sees Chelsea as a plaything which he'll discard "anytime soon". Well we are still waiting, still hoping but it ain't happening.

Liverpool may not be beholding to a wealthy individual who may or (more likely) may not up-sticks anytime soon but it seems that we are becoming more and more beholding to wealthy sponsors (Adidas anyone) who invariably up-sticks when the going gets tough or there's 'bigger' draws for their buck. No ties you see. 

raphael honigstein ‏@honigstein 2h

. @SPORTBILD report that Götze turned down a €20m per year offer from Man City last month. that's GBP 331k per week...

If that's what money can get you - I'm more than happy to stay 7th

Principles

If that's what money can get you - I'm more than happy to stay 7th

Principles

So if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"? Would you really prefer us "to stay 7th"? 

So if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"? Would you really prefer us "to stay 7th"? 

I think most of us, apart from Rush, would love that money to be spent on high quality players mate!

I'm not against sponsorship in football and where we not the first club to have a shirt sponsor back in the day? But I draw the line at sponsoring Anfield as I'm also a traditionalist at heart and Anfield is a name synonymous with the history of the club and success in football in general.

So if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"? Would you really prefer us "to stay 7th"? 

Like I said, given the choice, I'd rather stay 7th - I can still support the team regardless

So if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"? Would you really prefer us "to stay 7th"? 

What it also shows is that some players won't just chase the money..

Some want to go where they see something.. Now Bayern are obviously a top side and will pay good money.. But we also pay good money, we just need to show ambition and we will always compete

But if some of the fans don't see the ambition can we expect some  players with lots of options open to them to see something?

That's where FSG are failing for me

Like I said, given the choice, I'd rather stay 7th - I can still support the team regardless

Really?

So as Mouse said if we got £200M in sponsorship, I'll presume he means other than renaming Anfield, you'd not want that money invested in the squad?

Where would you like it to be invested then?

Really?

So as Mouse said if we got £200M in sponsorship, I'll presume he means other than renaming Anfield, you'd not want tahat money invested in the squad?

Where would you like it to be invested then?

On signing new players within the rules of a sensible wage structure

£331,000 a week is not sensible, my cut off point is £150,000, which again, isn't sensible, but I have to be realistic and realise there are people out there who are primarily in it for how much cash they can get, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Becoming a millionaire every 3 weeks for kicking a football around is just plain wrong and no club should feel pressurised into paying that.

On signing new players within the rules of a sensible wage structure

£331,000 a week is not sensible, my cut off point is £150,000, which again, isn't sensible, but I have to be realistic and realise there are people out there who are primarily in it for how much cash they can get, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Becoming a millionaire every 3 weeks for kicking a football around is just plain wrong and no club should feel pressurised into paying that.

Fair enough although if we did get that amount of investment I know I'd rather it go on quality players who can help us on the pitch than anywhere else.

Take your point on wages though as they are ridiculous.

On signing new players within the rules of a sensible wage structure

£331,000 a week is not sensible, my cut off point is £150,000, which again, isn't sensible, but I have to be realistic and realise there are people out there who are primarily in it for how much cash they can get, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Becoming a millionaire every 3 weeks for kicking a football around is just plain wrong and no club should feel pressurised into paying that.

Exactly, you can become a successful team and even sustain your success by having 6-7 Suarezesque players who are not after the absurd wages and value loyalty and footballing success.

Exactly, you can become a successful team and even sustain your success by having 6-7 Suarezesque players who are not after the absurd wages and value loyalty and footballing success.

You have to be perfect for that though.. Zero mistakes in the market

You have to find 6-7 Suarezeque players ( your words, I'm not convinced) and for them to work out and for it to happen quickly or you lose the Suarez's of this world to teams who are successful and where they can get the success they desire and deserve.
And your process starts again.

We can't wait 5 years of slow building to get somewhere.. I'm not banging the drum for instant success I'm very patient, we have waited this long to get back where we deserve to be and I can't wait longer if I see a plan to get us there.. Now I don't consider myself daft but I just dont see it and just blind faith and fingers crossed wont achieve it.
If we are still in this position in 5 years we will have started the process again a couple of times as I'd guarentee the likes of Luis and Coutinho, Gerrard and Pepe won't be here..

Doing it this way we need to be perfect in every aspect..

And FSG are far from perfect.. Far far from it.. More mistakes than good decisions and we are 3 years in already and while more stable off the pitch further behind on it

Also, for me, the problem is sustainability coupled with longevity

Let's say we have £350m to spend from a huge sponsor, and let's say we manage to get Lion Messi’s younger brother Ian – he’s even better than Lionel!

Thing is though, right off the bat, it costs us £100m, so we are left with £250m, and we agree to pay him 331,000 per week. Let's say we buy him when he's 20 year of age.

That means he'll be with us for 755 weeks at 331,000 per week, or 14 years. So his entire career

Sounds good, but let’s be realistic here, that's just one player, and we haven't even considered wage increases each year for 14 years yet. And that's with a massive £350m sponsor deal. And let’s not forget, there’s no guarantees in football either. There's no guarantee he'll score every single game or stay injury free

And what about the other players? Let’s say the other world class striker Joe Bloggs is only on £200,000 a week (only? Don’t make me laugh), is he happy with that wage structure? He may be, he may not.

It’s just not worth it - and I hope we never ever have to go down that route, because by that time, football is no longer a sport, it’s a business like horse racing. Besides, when you agree to pay someone £331,000 a week, that player is bigger than the club – period

Clubs would be under tremendous pressure to compete, and it’s simply not sustainable

I’m hoping these FFP rules (or whatever they’re called) are maintained throughout the football world. The very reason for their inception should tell you folk are starting to get anxious about the crazy money going around the football world