They won't be protecting their asset (their main asset now BTW if they do go ahead and sell the Sox) unless they do spend. The real question is whether they realise that.
FSG - Saviours or Lizards
- Thread starter the count
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
They won't be protecting their asset (their main asset now BTW if they do go ahead and sell the Sox) unless they do spend. The real question is whether they realise that.
I dont think this 30mill is thumb in the air figures, its from the money we make. I think they want us to live by our means, and that means we can't go doing a city/chelsea. So it's not them not having a clue, far from it. So if they start spending 50,60,70mill every summer, and the players turn out to be downing and hendo's - then what? Who's paying for that extra 40mill? Where's it coming from? Loads of debt is the answer.
Until we get bought by some billionaire oil baron, I think you need to get real, we've not got the money to spend. And we're in a lot better position than a lot of clubs in the league, i.e our blue neighbours, that'd LOVE 30mill to spend every summer.
I dont mind our new owners. They've not done much wrong, and done a fair bit right (saving our asses).
£30m is the amount they've put in. I don't know why you're directing your other points to me seeing as they don't pertain to anything I said.
Well said Mors - Glad to see you are taking a different view from the usual internet bullies, Sunny, peterhague and worst of all the count! Listen to me and JJ for we speak the truth. 😉
I don't think, as a general policy, a major club can decide not to spend on the grounds that it might be misspent. You have to make good judgements, not avoid making bad judgements by not spending much. It's not a risk-aversive business. If you don't trust your employees, get rid of them or get rid of yourself. But you'll have to find the courage and calculation to decide which risks are worth running and then run with them.
To be honest I think they are a bit weird in that they as a group try and please the fans which they did at the start and realized what a mistake that was and are doing it the way they want from this season. I don't blame them for anything that has gone wrong with us - they gave the last manager the money and they gave this manager some money - it just so happened that our current manager blew away £10M on a striker from Italy who cannot score.
Liverpool eager to secure a lucrative new shirt deal with Standard Chartered
Liverpool are in talks with banking firm Standard Chartered to extend and improve on a lucrative shirt sponsorship deal presently worth £20 million a year.
Nice fit: Liverpool are confident they can negotiate a new shirt deal with Standard Chartered Photo: ACTION IMAGES
Less than two years into a four-year contract, the Merseyside club hope to swiftly conclude negotiations to secure the partnership beyond the end of 2014.
Under the present terms Standard Chartered has been granted a period of exclusivity enabling it the option of prolonging its relationship withLiverpool and the club are confident they can better the arrangement which began in 2010.
The £80 million over the course of four years was a club record at the time, but it was agreed in 2009 – a year before it came into effect – when Liverpool were second in the Premier League and still part of Europe’s elite competition. The global economic downturn and the club’s deteriorating on-pitch performance has made securing sponsorship even more challenging since then.
Commercial revenues at Anfield have increased in recent years despite Liverpool falling out of the top four, but the well-documented pursuit of a stadium sponsor was abandoned after the club were unable to raise funds to move to Stanley Park.
A lack of Champions League football would seem to make investment in Anfield less attractive, and last season the furore over Luis Suárez’s refusal to shake hands with Manchester United's Patrice Evra prompted a statement from Standard Chartered expressing “disappointment” and “concerned” about how the racism controversy was being handled.
However, that does not appear to have left any lasting damage and Liverpool are confident a healthy relationship will be extended.
Club executives are also believe the lack of Champions League football will not have an unduly negative impact on negotiations because Standard Chartered is based in Asia where the Premier League holds such sway.
The evening kick-offs in Europe do not attract such a large television audience in places such as Singapore and Thailand because of the differing time zones.
Liverpool are in talks with banking firm Standard Chartered to extend and improve on a lucrative shirt sponsorship deal presently worth £20 million a year.
Nice fit: Liverpool are confident they can negotiate a new shirt deal with Standard Chartered Photo: ACTION IMAGES
By Chris Bascombe
11:00PM GMT 13 Nov 2012
Less than two years into a four-year contract, the Merseyside club hope to swiftly conclude negotiations to secure the partnership beyond the end of 2014.
Under the present terms Standard Chartered has been granted a period of exclusivity enabling it the option of prolonging its relationship withLiverpool and the club are confident they can better the arrangement which began in 2010.
The £80 million over the course of four years was a club record at the time, but it was agreed in 2009 – a year before it came into effect – when Liverpool were second in the Premier League and still part of Europe’s elite competition. The global economic downturn and the club’s deteriorating on-pitch performance has made securing sponsorship even more challenging since then.
Commercial revenues at Anfield have increased in recent years despite Liverpool falling out of the top four, but the well-documented pursuit of a stadium sponsor was abandoned after the club were unable to raise funds to move to Stanley Park.
A lack of Champions League football would seem to make investment in Anfield less attractive, and last season the furore over Luis Suárez’s refusal to shake hands with Manchester United's Patrice Evra prompted a statement from Standard Chartered expressing “disappointment” and “concerned” about how the racism controversy was being handled.
However, that does not appear to have left any lasting damage and Liverpool are confident a healthy relationship will be extended.
Club executives are also believe the lack of Champions League football will not have an unduly negative impact on negotiations because Standard Chartered is based in Asia where the Premier League holds such sway.
The evening kick-offs in Europe do not attract such a large television audience in places such as Singapore and Thailand because of the differing time zones.
In pure business terms, they bought a business with an extraordinary loyal worldwide customer base for a knock down price, relative to other brands, and comparable businesses. Given how they got us for this lower valuation, we all expected a little more than a $35M net investment for transfers. You're just not going to go anywhere with that level of investment in this league. I don't think we all expected in 2012 to be in this spendthrift mode, where the asset keeps getting depreciated, because the older players are not going to be replaced with equal value, and the new players coming in are not of comparable value.
That being said, we bought * extraordinarily* badly last year. Part of the over paying for these players was fact that attracting decent talent was tough with no CL. So we were stuck buying tier 2 players, and paying the "Big Club" surcharge tax, even though we didn't have the big club revenues coming in. I know we think Kennoli did poor business, but these factors did make it harder.
We really need a second miracle, like when a manager leaped us forward to a CL team post 2005. I am seeing Rodgers as less and less this kind of manager. He seems to be equal to the sum of his parts, whereas the manager in 2005-2009 was able to get lower quality players playing above the sum of their parts. IMHO. This is the kind of management miracle FSG seem to be hoping for to get us out of this rut. I don't think any of us see Rodgers as this man, even if the rebuilding has just begun. He just doesn't have that "Je ne sais quoi" of leadership inspiring success.. But time will tell
That being said, we bought * extraordinarily* badly last year. Part of the over paying for these players was fact that attracting decent talent was tough with no CL. So we were stuck buying tier 2 players, and paying the "Big Club" surcharge tax, even though we didn't have the big club revenues coming in. I know we think Kennoli did poor business, but these factors did make it harder.
We really need a second miracle, like when a manager leaped us forward to a CL team post 2005. I am seeing Rodgers as less and less this kind of manager. He seems to be equal to the sum of his parts, whereas the manager in 2005-2009 was able to get lower quality players playing above the sum of their parts. IMHO. This is the kind of management miracle FSG seem to be hoping for to get us out of this rut. I don't think any of us see Rodgers as this man, even if the rebuilding has just begun. He just doesn't have that "Je ne sais quoi" of leadership inspiring success.. But time will tell
They're beginning to give the impression of another American business with ambitions above their means and understanding.
Lack of the participation you'd expect of owners and this interminable silence make me think this is a project they're either losing interest in or don't find important enough to make more of an effort.
Hopefully I'm proved wrong and they'll get active soon but not many signals of intent at this point.
Lack of the participation you'd expect of owners and this interminable silence make me think this is a project they're either losing interest in or don't find important enough to make more of an effort.
Hopefully I'm proved wrong and they'll get active soon but not many signals of intent at this point.
That was our reality barely 24 months ago... I'll take this lot right now, thanks. They were met with equal skeptisism (sp?) when they took over at Fenway, and they did what they said that they would do. I may be proven wrong on this in time, but I'll give them a little more time to do the same here.
I wouldn't criticise them about the stadium issue. IMHO that always needed the utmost care and consideration before anything was decided properly and as far as I can see they've done that pretty admirably. And they've encouraged commercial ventures that have clearly helped the club. Aside from that, however, I'm very sceptical these days and really dislike how they've acted. Werner strikes me as a typical untrustworthy US TV exec who'll think nothing of giving someone an award one day and then using it to bludgeon them to death the next. Henry is one of the most English of Americans I've ever seen, and I don't mean that as a compliment. He'd make a reply about whether he plans to go to dinner sound like an historic puzzle for the Bletchley Codebreakers.
Not looking to get into a ruck here, with Macca or anybody else, but if they've saved us (literally) from extinction, handled (it would appear, so far) the stadium issue well and made a decision that we all would have wanted, given the choice, improved things enormously on the sponsorship / commerical investment side of things and given our manager a wheelbarrow full of cash to use - it's not their fault he bought muppets with it - what, other than the deadline day fiasco - which WAS a clusterfuck, of course, have they done to have so many of you so down on them, so quickly.
Again, time may prove me wrong, but I just don't get so much of the negativity. Maybe it's because I remember waking up two years ago and reading that we may cease to exist in a few days, or because I'm a Red Sox fan and I've seen what they did there, but I'm not unhappy with them.
Again, time may prove me wrong, but I just don't get so much of the negativity. Maybe it's because I remember waking up two years ago and reading that we may cease to exist in a few days, or because I'm a Red Sox fan and I've seen what they did there, but I'm not unhappy with them.
If all they ever achieve is to expand Anfield and make us commercially competitive again at least we can say we've finished bumping along the bottom (= midtable mediocrity) and have started to rise again. I've almost written off our footballing adventures for a while and just watch and hope stadium work happens.
I don't think in this era of football any supposedly big club can afford to write off its footballing adventures for any length of time. It's just too fast-moving and intense to take a break and then attempt to start competing again after the slow gestation of some very questionable and risk-laden plan. Once you drop out you'll be out for good. Obviously if you don't have the money to compete you can't compete, plain and simple. I don't mind that so much as the suggestion that you can rebuild a Premiership club as if it's some Third Division non-entity. You CAN do that with a Third Division club - you can get a young manager in, completely overhaul the playing system, the squad, the whole club. No one would give a toss. I don't think you can at a great club with a world reputation. A huge mass of the fan base will have aged and slipped away while the rebuilding happens, and if the rebuilding turns out to have failed you'll have wrecked it for good. That's the crazy world of football these days, but it's not an environment for Aristotelian prudence, no matter how sensible it might seem in theory. And what alarms me most about FSG is they don't even seem to have the courage of their convictions: if they must opt for the plan they've mooted, they have to push it with passion and genuine conviction, not shelve key elements of it after the new manager arrives and then curl up like tortoises and go to sleep. They need to up their game, get involved on a day to day basis and really fight for this to work.
I'm not sure FSG have spent on transfers, I think they've largely recycled transfer fees received.
They have improved commercial activity which I'd guess was the main reason for investing.
Stadium development is still a plan at the moment, when it's built and opened it'll be a fine achievement.
I think the jury has to be out on them at present.
They have improved commercial activity which I'd guess was the main reason for investing.
Stadium development is still a plan at the moment, when it's built and opened it'll be a fine achievement.
I think the jury has to be out on them at present.
And they can't hide forever behind the (gross) spending stats of a year ago. They appointed Commoli to negotiate the sums, and they made a mistake choosing him, but businessmen can't react to that by locking away the cheque book. Certainly not in football these days. They either need to gamble again, but better, or not gamble at all and sell up. Why any sane businessmen stay in football is a mystery to me, because in many conventional ways it can't make sense, but they can't redefine it on their own terms whilst the madness continues all around them. Robert Kraft made an admirably logical decision not to get involved for those reasons. I'm not sure what FSG want to achieve any more. I suppose I just want to see more evidence that they ARE still doing, and planning, something.
Sorry but I don't have a problem with the lack of info. I for one don't want them splashing our business across the media. It never used to happen during the glory days.
As far as the running of the club goes, we're not in a position to know what they're doing or not doing day to day. What we do know is that they rescued the club from a far worse situation under the two cowboys and that they bankrolled the first manager they appointed in a big way. It wasn't their fault that some poor decisions about how to use that money were made by experienced people on the ground whose judgment they quite reasonably trusted. That set us back and we now have to recover from it. Is anybody really surprised by that? Because I'm not.
Their intentions are simple: to make money. That's what their intention has always been, they themselves have made no secret of it and surely none of us has been in any real doubt about it. The only way they're going to do that is if the club is successful, and that's why I'm more hopeful than many of you seem to be.
As far as the running of the club goes, we're not in a position to know what they're doing or not doing day to day. What we do know is that they rescued the club from a far worse situation under the two cowboys and that they bankrolled the first manager they appointed in a big way. It wasn't their fault that some poor decisions about how to use that money were made by experienced people on the ground whose judgment they quite reasonably trusted. That set us back and we now have to recover from it. Is anybody really surprised by that? Because I'm not.
Their intentions are simple: to make money. That's what their intention has always been, they themselves have made no secret of it and surely none of us has been in any real doubt about it. The only way they're going to do that is if the club is successful, and that's why I'm more hopeful than many of you seem to be.
I sort of agree but, let's be clear, FSG created the culture from which they're currently fleeing. They were the ones who said they wanted to engage with the fans, they were the ones who said they wanted to bring the fans into the club and its discussions, they were the ones who stressed how committed they were to assuaging fears and winning trust. So that's why a bit more information and transparency is needed. They're the ones who encouraged such curiosity. As for whose fault it was when employees messed up: well, it's shared, isn't it? If someone chooses an employee, insists they're brilliant at their job and they're then booted out after successive cock-ups, some degree of responsibility should be acknowledged, shouldn't it? There's no shame in that, so long as it doesn't keep happening. I think there's something disingenuous about their recent switch to 1970s-style aloofness and secrecy. Hicks and Gillett traumatised many fans. FSG can't just expect them now to trust on blind faith alone. There's not much faith around these days, and with good reason.
- Status
