Yes, I long for LFC to be owned by a oil rich state with a dubious human rights record or loaded up to the eyeballs with debt.
Mentality Monster Munch
- Thread starter mom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Yes, I long for LFC to be owned by a oil rich state with a dubious human rights record or loaded up to the eyeballs with debt.
I'm definitely boycotting the WC. If everyone knew what really went on in Qatar, you'd be absolutely appalled.
I mean, they've just shut down all migrant quarters and kicked them out leaving hundreds of them suddenly homeless. Bastards the lot of them.
Hopefully the Arab women will rise and lock their men up in bathrooms when the WC matches are on.
I mean, they've just shut down all migrant quarters and kicked them out leaving hundreds of them suddenly homeless. Bastards the lot of them.
Hopefully the Arab women will rise and lock their men up in bathrooms when the WC matches are on.
Shush… or Leaky Sue will be heading there on a fact finding mission to deal with the “migrant invasion”.
Last edited:
I’m surpised you bothered to reply to that load of bollocks from Op.
It’s all very well pointing at middle east migrant welfare but don’t dare look at what’s going closer to home in UK or Singapore. I guess the distiction here is all migrants in our camps are “illegals”.
Anyway back to the original topic, we suck.
We don’t need to be backed by a rich oil state to buy a few players, FSG could and should have invested more regularly and to be honest, if Klopp had raised the war cry for more investment then fans would have backed him, especially if he had threatened to quit. But he hadn’t, which personally is a mistake on his part too.
What does invest mean though?
I hope that’s not as dumb a question as it may sound - but investment is all about return - so what greater return are they going to get by investing their own money - and how do they realise that return?
The return City Group are after isn’t purely financial - they’re looking for global assets and also, more importantly, credibility and recognisability - FSG aren’t interested in any of that in the same way - and their investment is growing perfectly well without having to dip into their own pockets.
How does spending more of their own money or loading loan debt onto the club increase their return on investment?
Why has Trent turned shit, when he runs its like he is carry an extra 2 stones. I have never seen a player move slower bar Melo? Gomez feels like he is constantly trying to look after both the RB and RCB because Trent is gone fucking walkies.
We haven't recovered from the loss of Mane, had he stayed we would have been 9 points better off. You could even say the loss of Diaz probably cost us 7 points, and Jota probably 5.
We haven't recovered from the loss of Mane, had he stayed we would have been 9 points better off. You could even say the loss of Diaz probably cost us 7 points, and Jota probably 5.
I don’t think that’s true - he’s definitely bulked up his upper body - but he can still shift when he wants to.
Are we seeing a decision that bulking up his upper body strength is better than “ lean speed” - I can’t imagine there isn’t some reason behind it - he won’t have made a decision to “pump iron” in isolation.
Has he bulked up for Instagram or match fitness? because half the time he doesn't even bother run. His face is a face of resignation. If we weren't so thin on talent, I'd stick him on the bench until he shakes off the Dele Alli Syndrome.
Is FSG’s value of LFC growing though?
They ultimately need to invest to at least maintain the value.
Now I’m not in the business of being able to value an asset but currently we prob won’t CL league this season. This will impact value and revenues in short term.
If club was worth 3 billion in the summer then I assume we are worth less now and say that’s 2.5 billion to a future buyer. So assume we had over spent an additional 100 million in the summer, we probably would have protected the 500m drop off. I know this is all theory but just don’t see how FSG assuming we are destined linear growth works here without required further investment especially if all the teams below us are all investing further to over take us. Maybe sincd they brought us for 300m they don’t care about any significant drops in value since with alll infra investments we have made we are protected in that sense.
Im note entirely sure - but I don’t think that’s how it works.
For one - the actual value is based on what someone actually pays for.
I guess it’s like a house - valuations are one thing - sell price is another.
Investing in players feels like the same as in vesting in a new carpet or new curtains if you want to sell - it’s largely unimportant - the key drivers will be location, location, location - and we’re always going to have that - even if we drop out of CL - we’ll always be an iconic club that attracts a selling premium.
FSG bought us cheap in effectively, a fire sale, did a bit of work, modernised us and that’s that - we’ll continue to grow in value without them either tipping in or authorising debt.
I don’t think it’s a bad system - but it means we need to develop players to sell in order to buy at the top end - that’s what we’ve been bad at in the last couple of years.
the value is based on assets too…
I would seriously doubt someone is likely to pay the same for us if we are CL club and if we dropped out.
I don’t agree it’s based alone on location. Iconic or not, things change and we can’t sit on a static landscape.
I don’t think the most sensible of us are calling for 100s mills but just enough to manage a debt if required. We have stood still and as expected paying for it big time in my view but like you said FSG probably don’t care unless the value drops below a point where it impacts their operational metrics.
Just think, we could have had 37 points!
I never said that. 25 points is probably what we would have had, if Mane was in the Squad. 23 with Daiz and 21 with Jota. Tells you how much shape and balalance we lose when you miss players who constantly press from the front
Yes - and they’ve invested in non- player assets like stadium & training that don’t fluctuate on return as wildly as players.
They bought us for, what, £300 million - and we’re valued at probably £3 billion now - that valuation, I don’t think, varies much based on transfer market.
They’ve invested in training facilities and stadium - we have solid commercial agreements and a strong, recognisable “brand” - they’ll remain the primary value drivers.
I think we, as fans, view success as more important than it probably is - EPL money is our major income stream and there isn’t a huge variation based on league position - we’ll always pick up money based on live games shown because of our fanbase.
Once you’re in the CL - there is potential to earn loads, but it partly depends on how the other English teams do (the pot is bigger if other English teams don’t progress - so Spurs not getting through is financially beneficial to us).
Missing out on CL isn’t great, but it’s also not disastrous if it’s short term - it’s a revenue stream reduction that doesn’t necessarily affect our valuation significantly.
I guess what I’m saying is - there isn’t really a business case for the owners to do anything significantly different from their point of view - and that’s different from a fans point of view.
Where we can be different is churning players over more quickly - buy to sell and sell players other teams want - Alisson, Trent, Van Dijk, etc
I agree we’r hanging on to too many players for too long - but, hanging on to those players for so long has allowed us to overachieve as a team at the same time.
It’s a bit of a bind - retain players, overachieve and hit a wall or churn through players and never achieve the consistency needed to dominate.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
