John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think its unfair for supporters to expect the best team possible, and the best stadium possible as one of the biggest clubs in the world.
I accept that this should have been sone 20 years ago, but that doesn't absolve FSG of their duty to do just that.
I'm not sure that there's anyone left that believes FSG are here for any other reason than to make a huge profit, but even if there is, they must know that if FSG were to invest in increasing the ARE, they would get it back in the eventual sale price. Of course this would mean doing it for no EXTRA profit, that doesn't appeal of course, these guys aren't do gooders after all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think its unfair for supporters to expect the best team possible, and the best stadium possible as one of the biggest clubs in the world.

You aren't F***ing wrong mate, way it should be!

Another storm in a teacup, perpetuated by the permanently angry and entitled.

While those on the sidelines throw around glib remarks.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think its unfair for supporters to expect the best team possible, and the best stadium possible as one of the biggest clubs in the world.
I accept that this should have been sone 20 years ago, but that doesn't absolve FSG of their duty to do just that.
I'm not sure that there's anyone left that believes FSG are here for any other reason than to make a huge profit, but even if there is, they must know that if FSG were to invest in increasing the ARE, they would get it back in the eventual sale price. Of course this would mean doing it for no EXTRA profit, that doesn't appeal of course, these guys aren't do gooders after all.

Its just sh*t really isn't it... Especially with the ever increasing tv money that gets pumped into every club every year.

Not having that swab and I couldn't have put it better than this......

Once again, as I have said many times before, name me a modern owner of our club who has done more.
They don't take any money out, they have given the managers money for players, they've expanded the stadium, they've hugely increased commercial revenue.
In short, they've fixed years and years of Moores sitting on his arse watching us decline, while Parry played F***ing golf instead of doing his job.

Yet all they get is lied about and slagged off.
Have a look at the latest accounts and compare them to the first set of accounts when they came in.
The difference is massive.
There's plenty of money for Klopp to spend, as he himself stated.
It's hardly the owners fault that the manager didn't spend everything he had.

So we've got decent, safe owners but all some on here do is slag them off at every opportunity, when they've done everything they said they would.

Once again, as I have said many times before, name me a modern owner of our club who has done more.
They don't take any money out, they have given the managers money for players, they've expanded the stadium, they've hugely increased commercial revenue.
In short, they've fixed years and years of Moores sitting on his arse watching us decline, while Parry played F***ing golf instead of doing his job.

Yet all they get is lied about and slagged off.
Have a look at the latest accounts and compare them to the first set of accounts when they came in.
The difference is massive.
There's plenty of money for Klopp to spend, as he himself stated.
It's hardly the owners fault that the manager didn't spend everything he had.

So we've got decent, safe owners but all some on here do is slag them off at every opportunity, when they've done everything they said they would.

There's plenty of money to spend if Klopp wants it, Funny how there wasnt plenty of money for Brendan to spend when wanted to buy top players!

FSG have done the bare minimum I'd expect from owners of our club, sorting out the finances was a no brainer, how else were they going to make the huge profit the are?
A businessman sticking up for businessmen! No surprise there!

There's plenty of money to spend if Klopp wants it, Funny how there wasnt plenty of money for Brendan to spend when wanted to buy top players!

FSG have done the bare minimum I'd expect from owners of our club, sorting out the finances was a no brainer, how else were they going to make the huge profit the are?
A businessman sticking up for businessmen! No surprise there!

BR spent a shitload of money.
So did KK.
Klopp said he has the money if he wants to use it.

They've fixed everything that Moores let slide.

I'm not sticking up for them, simply pointing out a few inconvenient facts, nor does it have anything to do with "being a businessman", whatever that means, and everything to do with honest appraisal instead of whining about anything and everything.

BR spent a shitload of money.
So did KK.
Klopp said he has the money if he wants to use it.

They've fixed everything that Moores let slide.

I'm not sticking up for them, simply pointing out a few inconvenient facts,  and everything to do with honest appraisal instead of whining about anything and everything.

Ok, let's be honest with a few facts shall we?

Rodgers spent lots of cash. And recouped lots for them too.
Kenny spent lots of cash. And recouped lots too.
Klopp has spent a few quid. And recouped a fair bit too.
These are owners that regularly oversee a Net Spend of 0 in transfer windows.
These are owners who overseen the exits of Torres, Gerrard, Suarez, and Sterling, to name a few.
Owners who refused to stand up for Suarez in "probably"-gate, and refused to appeal the punishment handed down.
Owners who don't attend home games.
Owners who sack coaches over phone calls.
Owners who sacked Kenny Dalglish.

With that record, they deserve the response they get tbh.

Ok, let's be honest with a few facts shall we?

Rodgers spent lots of cash. And recouped lots for them too.
Kenny spent lots of cash. And recouped lots too.
Klopp has spent a few quid. And recouped a fair bit too.
These are owners that regularly oversee a Net Spend of 0 in transfer windows.
These are owners who overseen the exits of Torres, Gerrard, Suarez, and Sterling, to name a few.
Owners who refused to stand up for Suarez in "probably"-gate, and refused to appeal the punishment handed down.
Owners who don't attend home games.
Owners who sack coaches over phone calls.
Owners who sacked Kenny Dalglish.

With that record, they deserve the response they get tbh.

That's all fair enough but it's pretty damn good right now though right?..

Ok, let's be honest with a few facts shall we?

Rodgers spent lots of cash. And recouped lots for them too.
Kenny spent lots of cash. And recouped lots too.
Klopp has spent a few quid. And recouped a fair bit too.
These are owners that regularly oversee a Net Spend of 0 in transfer windows.
These are owners who overseen the exits of Torres, Gerrard, Suarez, and Sterling, to name a few.
Owners who refused to stand up for Suarez in "probably"-gate, and refused to appeal the punishment handed down.
Owners who don't attend home games.
Owners who sack coaches over phone calls.
Owners who sacked Kenny Dalglish.

With that record, they deserve the response they get tbh.

And just how do you propose that those players were kept?
Torres, Suarez and Sterling all wanted to leave, and Gerrard was past it for the prem, his legs were gone.

Mike Gordon spends pretty much all his time at Anfield these days, and has done since he increased his holdings.
Then again, if they were more vocal, no doubt we'd have Shank's quote about owners keeping quiet thrown out.

You see, using snippets out of context to "build" a case that is disingenuous at best, is not only silly, it actually stifles debate and creates arguments instead.
However, I suspect that was the point anyway.

Ok, let's be honest with a few facts shall we?


These are owners that regularly oversee a Net Spend of 0 in transfer windows.

Yes, lets be honest.

In 2010-11 we made a profit of £3.38m, though they were only here for one of the windows.

2011-12 £36.19m net spend.
2012-13 £51.13m net spend.
2013-14 £21.68m net spend.
2014-15 £44.34m net spend
2015-16 £30.64m net spend
2016-17 £510,000 net spend with a window still to come.

So, one seasons close to zero and we still have a window to go in that scenario. When it's open perhaps we can chuck your made up sh*t out that window too?

That's not even touching the fact that all four of the players you named engineered, or had their agents do it, their own moves away from the club.

I also don't know if you read the full verdict that the FA handed down to Suarez, appealing would have been monumentally stupid, given the way the document was worded. The only thing it really highlighted is laws and justice are two separate things.

Yes, lets be honest.

In 2010-11 we made a profit of £3.38m, though they were only here for one of the windows.

2011-12 £36.19m net spend.
2012-13 £51.13m net spend.
2013-14 £21.68m net spend.
2014-15 £44.34m net spend
2015-16 £30.64m net spend
2016-17 £510,000 net spend with a window still to come.

So, one seasons close to zero and we still have a window to go in that scenario. When it's open perhaps we can chuck your made up sh*t out that window too?

That's not even touching the fact that all four of the players you named engineered, or had their agents do it, their own moves away from the club.

I also don't know if you read the full verdict that the FA handed down to Suarez, appealing would have been monumentally stupid, given the way the document was worded. The only thing it really highlighted is laws and justice are two separate things.

Don't know where you got those figures from, but if say they're way off.
The reason said players engineered those moves was due the the lack of ambition shown by FSG, Torres said as much himself.

Don't know where you got those figures from, but if say they're way off.
The reason said players engineered those moves was due the the lack of ambition shown by FSG, Torres said as much himself.

What are your figures for net spend then?
Also please remind me what the net spend was on the new stand.

Don't know where you got those figures from, but if say they're way off.
The reason said players engineered those moves was due the the lack of ambition shown by FSG, Torres said as much himself.

FSG had literally just walked in the door when Torres was agitating for his move, so I'm going to call bullshit, as he had not even given them one window, and had been in a sulk for months.

Suarez stated it had always been his dream to play for Barca, and Sterling just saw pound signs, as did his agent who was busy stirring the sh*t at every opportunity.

The cost of our starting XI for the season can be seen below:

Karius - £5m

Clyne - £15m
Lovren - £20m
Matip - free
Milner - free (£100k pw)

Henderson - £20m
Wijnaldum - £25m
Lallana - £25m

Coutinho - £7.5m
Mane - £35m

Firmino - £28m

That's not really cheap is it? And everyone is there because Jürgen wants them there.

The window just gone was very successful, too. Signed some first-teamers who have already had a huge impact and flogged off who we didn't want. No one even remotely considered "important" to the team was sold. We have kept our best players, added to that and we're winning the league this season. All good.

Maybe we just needed someone who had a F***ing clue how to manage a club?

What are your figures for net spend then?
Also please remind me what the net spend was on the new stand.

Net spend on new stand? Did we sell some of it as Well? I've already given credit to FSG for building the stand, but it's not as if they're going to be out of pocket, they'll get it back twice through naming rights, and the increased value of the club as a result of building it.
As for player net spend, I've seen somewhere (probably on here) ,that the net spend is closer to 25/27 million per season on average. Don't have time to look for it as I'm on lunch break.

Net spend on new stand? Did we sell some of it as Well? I've already given credit to FSG for building the stand, but it's not as if they're going to be out of pocket, they'll get it back twice through naming rights, and the increased value of the club as a result of building it.
As for player net spend, I've seen somewhere (probably on here) ,that the net spend is closer to 25/27 million per season on average. Don't have time to look for it as I'm on lunch break.

They won't "get it back twice", because the loan is interest free and is to be repaid at some point in either cash or equity.
Think about that for a moment; interest free, then think about how much money they have lost by not investing that elsewhere, not to mention how much the club has saved.
OK, they'll get back the cost when they sell up, assuming they take the value in equity, but that's a long way off yet.

They won't "get it back twice", because the loan is interest free and is to be repaid at some point in either cash or equity.
Think about that for a moment; interest free, then think about how much money they have lost by not investing that elsewhere, not to mention how much the club has saved.
OK, they'll get back the cost when they sell up, assuming they take the value in equity, but that's a long way off yet.

Interest Free is not as admirable as you think, rates are very low at present, so in their multimillionaire world they are not loosing that much, but gaining a lot.

Don't know where you got those figures from,

Transfermarkt.

Interest Free is not as admirable as you think, rates are very low at present, so in their multimillionaire world they are not loosing that much, but gaining a lot.

No F***ing flies on JWH & Co.

Interest Free is not as admirable as you think, rates are very low at present, so in their multimillionaire world they are not loosing that much, but gaining a lot.

Well, it is really, because that money wouldn't be sat in a bank, it would be invested in markets, markets where JH has shown an ability over many years to make an awful lot of money.
Now add in the timeframe for repayment (there isn't one), and it's easy to make the case that even in a 5 year period, he could have got a return of 20% on the money he loaned.

On top of that, we would as a club, have had to go to a venture capital firm/bank, which has interest rates much higher than you see on the high street, as H&G found out to their cost.
Of course we would have been able to get a much better deal that the 18% they were paying, and maybe could have got as low as 5% (unlikely), but either way, we have saved a considerable amount, and JH has "lost" a considerable amount.

As I said before, assuming he (and others) take the loan back in the form of equity, they'll make their money as and when they sell.
I don't have a problem with that, my only issue is who they eventually sell to, but I'd bet that they'll do better than Moores and Parry.

Following some of the logic here:

1. Liverpool need owners who will invest in the club.
2. Liverpool's current owners are investing in the club (sorting the finances, etc.) but damn them, they are going to recoup their investment!

1. Liverpool's current owners are wrong in that they are planning to one day sell and leave.
2. Liverpool's current owners, damn them, need to go....you know, by selling.


Instead of simply attacking the owners' actions, it might be constructive for their critics here to outline their IDEAL as to how an owner should operate, run the club. By that I don't mean "They should love the club" or "They should remember the fans." which, however true, are just slogans if left without specifics.

Remembering the financial realities of modern football, what do you want to see from an alternative LFC owner?

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/10604328/manchester-united-break-record-for-most-expensive-squad

might be worth putting this here to gauge our squad costs to others in Europe, no real surprises for me in our position