we've recouped a lot of the money but they (kenny and comolli) still went out and spent that 100m.
What are the owners made of?
- Thread starter Farkmaster
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
we've recouped a lot of the money but they (kenny and comolli) still went out and spent that 100m.
They've invested very little indeed. The worrying signs are already there...
I'll explain my position. I'm not that worried, we just still have the same problems we always have had - new owners can't immediately remedy years of bad decision making.
1. The club spending the money it earns is not the owners investing money. But everyone looks at net spend to see if the owners are investing. It's simply not the correct way to look at it. If you want to see whether owners are investing in the club look at the club accounts and any changes in debt and equity levels.
2. The club has always and will always spend what it earns, expecting the owners to throw their own money into the club is expecting too much. Only a foolish owner would do it (H&G did it), and after a certain point it's against FFP rules anyway.
3. I'm not all that confident in Comolli, the little he said publicly last summer about the reasons for the signings / keeping players we made were worrying. He seems to be on the wrong track, then again I'm not sure how much he can be blamed for the signings and how much of it was Kenny. The only saving grace I think is that if you look at the younger players he signed for Spurs, a significant amount of them go on to be very good. Although Harry got rid of some of them like Boateng who is now starring for AC Milan.
4. The sheen has been wiped off FSG in the past couple of years in America. The Red Sox are a bit of a mess right now and the behind the scenes stuff is more than a little off putting.
I've seen you mention this before on here. Would you mind expanding on it? I'm curious and cant find anything on google.
What JH did was take the relatively small high risk derivatives market and wrap it up in such a way that it became attractive to massive institutional investors. This is how he made his money, and this was the reason that so much went so wrong.
Here's an article from 1996 when he was just trying to get the thing going.
http://www.streetstories.com/jwh_conway_oliver.html
Here's an article from 1996 when he was just trying to get the thing going.
http://www.streetstories.com/jwh_conway_oliver.html
Weird, he looks older when he was younger. I'm leaning more toward vampire than lizard. Both bram stoker and babbybabbylon wrong wrong.
But seriously though, when I hear lizard, I don't think of an actual lizard, I think of a lizardman ala Hunter S Thompson's ether scenes.
But seriously though, when I hear lizard, I don't think of an actual lizard, I think of a lizardman ala Hunter S Thompson's ether scenes.
Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen David Icke and Krump in the same room together?
Damn, I spent over 48 mental (yet boss) hours in Krump's company (bar a few hours sleep) & not ONCE did I see David Icke in the same room.
True story.
they show me that they aren't willing to give any manager time and revolving door era at liverpool is about to begin.
giving a manager a year is a recipe for disaster, sure there are exceptions as there are exceptions with everything but you look at successful teams more often than not that success is built on stability.
Why is the example always Newcastle?
There are a fair few top clubs that have been sacking managers without a second thought for years and it's rarely stopped them from putting out great sides and winning trophies.
Putting aside the Kenny situation for one moment, sacking a manager doesn't automatically mean you're introducing a revolving door policy or showing some kind of inherent lack of understanding of the way you should behave in football (if there is such a thing).
There are a fair few top clubs that have been sacking managers without a second thought for years and it's rarely stopped them from putting out great sides and winning trophies.
Putting aside the Kenny situation for one moment, sacking a manager doesn't automatically mean you're introducing a revolving door policy or showing some kind of inherent lack of understanding of the way you should behave in football (if there is such a thing).
it would for me, we would have gone from 4 managers in 20 years to 2 managers in 2.
So what?
All that shows is that in the present time we've struggled to get the right man. See: the Hodgson debacle. You sound as though you'd rather stick with a manager just so we don't compromise our manager stats.
Bayern have had 7 managers in the last 5 years and last time I checked they seem to be doing alright for themselves.
How many managers have Madrid had in the last 15 years? Or Milan? Juve? Inter?
All that shows is that in the present time we've struggled to get the right man. See: the Hodgson debacle. You sound as though you'd rather stick with a manager just so we don't compromise our manager stats.
Bayern have had 7 managers in the last 5 years and last time I checked they seem to be doing alright for themselves.
How many managers have Madrid had in the last 15 years? Or Milan? Juve? Inter?
It's because it goes against the liverpool way ken.
Something which has fallen by the wayside apart from in the hearts of older fans.
As a club we aren't special anymore. Success is rare, our players on the whole are average/good, our fans are pretty flat... What makes us special?
Something which has fallen by the wayside apart from in the hearts of older fans.
As a club we aren't special anymore. Success is rare, our players on the whole are average/good, our fans are pretty flat... What makes us special?
Oh yeah, I'm well aware of that. I just don't agree that "The Liverpool Way" dictates that we should afford a Liverpool manager patience regardless of evidence presented before us. Hodgson was rightly sacked, for example.
It would've been stupid to argue back when he was in charge that we can't sack him because a) that's not what Liverpool do and b) it will introduce a revolving door policy. Great - so we'd have ended up in the Championship with a demon in charge of us but we can still hold onto... what exactly.
So the Kenny situation is different. It's not as black and white by any stretch of the imagination. But the same reasoning applies. Sacking Kenny wouldn't mean the end of the world.
It would've been stupid to argue back when he was in charge that we can't sack him because a) that's not what Liverpool do and b) it will introduce a revolving door policy. Great - so we'd have ended up in the Championship with a demon in charge of us but we can still hold onto... what exactly.
So the Kenny situation is different. It's not as black and white by any stretch of the imagination. But the same reasoning applies. Sacking Kenny wouldn't mean the end of the world.
You're comparing the TOP teams with HUGE budgets and ability to bring in anyone to us? We're not there yet mate.
Because they're the typical example?
Chelsea and City have managed to plummet money into their clubs in a short space of time, so the basis was always there for them to adapt the right manager to an already capable squad. When we've brought managers in (in recent years), it's been to rebuild, everytime. How many times can we keep rebuilding and starting again?
Like Rosco, despite how the season has gone and the comparable form to the Hodgson fiasco, I can see the plus points and I think the difference for us much of the time has been marginal, and if people are so intent on looking at results then that's the evidence right there, we've drawn alot of games and lost many by one goal. That just shows our complete lack of a cutting edge which 'can' be rectified via a few additions to squad.
I appreciate that blowing what Kenny has is a big error and one which shouldn't go unpunished, but changing managers and being trigger happy isn't the Liverpool way. And someone saying they'd "love" to see that happen to a club legend after just over 12 months in the job, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what the club is about.
You can argue the implications of that and whether or not the club needs to change what it's about and move with the times, which we've argued for in many respects over the years, but in this instance it seems a complete disregard for the clubs ethics and ultimately, it's just more impatience on the fans part. Understandable, but as clichéd as it is, Rome wasn't built in a day. He needs time.
The owners fortunes with this high profile project (the way I suspect they view LFC) are inextricably linked with our successes or failures on the field. They have a reputation to keep. Nobody will look upon their stewardship and measure it by commercial deals it will be sporting success.
Firstly, getting a new manager doesn't necessitate "starting again". Real aside, I don't see other top clubs binning half their team off every time they get a new manager. It's an overplayed fear.
Secondly, I was talking more generally about the principle of sacking managers rather than advocating the sacking of Kenny.
- Status
