Liverpool FC Forum

Buck Rodgers » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:43 am wrote:

eds » Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:12 pm wrote:

Buck Rodgers » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:22 am wrote:The reason they should stay is because they are improving the club - they are doing things that should have been done 25 years ago. They are increasing our revenue , building the stadium.

Improvement? What improvement?

We have gone 6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and 6th under them.

Also why do we keep raising revenue as our main priority?

Our league finish is the be all and end all of our existence. Enough with this revenue rubbish.

We don't support a f**king bank.

This "revenue" rubbish is what we need to buy players

This "revenue" rubbish is what the mancs did 24 years ago to build up their stadium , to build up their squad - it's what we failed to do

Nowhere does it say that revenue is a main priority ?!

They are doing what is needed to attempt to build the club up. They are doing what we should have done years ago

Exactly... What I've been reading on here, some seem to just want a sugar daddy as owners. You would think that the mancs are able to buy world class players just out of thin air. Their owners did alot better in the past 2 1/2 decades than ours have to have them in a position they are now. Every company needs to be sustainable unless it is owned by billionaires to have it as part if their entertainment. As long as we are owned by 'normal' owners, we need to be sustainable as a business. NESV have kept their promise in expanding the stadium. They have reduced the club's debt to manageable levels. They have improved our commercial deals tremendously. The only bad thing they have done is their transfer policy. So therefore we could do alot worse than the current owners.

What undoubtably helped United was having the longest sustained run of success in their entire history just as big money came into the equation.
In 1992 just as the premier league was coming into being we had 18 league titles and United had 7, now they have 20 and we still have 18, a run of success like that does wonders for your balance sheet.

They jumped upon the new money - they built up their stadium initially and then leapt upon marketing the club all over the world which increased their commercial value through the roof - using that increase they were able to invest in their squad

Buck Rodgers » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:46 pm wrote:They jumped upon the new money - they built up their stadium initially and then leapt upon marketing the club all over the world which increased their commercial value through the roof - using that increase they were able to invest in their squad

It was all built off the back of their success though, if the trophies wouldn't have been rolling in half of that wouldn't have happened.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:52 pm wrote:

Buck Rodgers » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:46 pm wrote:They jumped upon the new money - they built up their stadium initially and then leapt upon marketing the club all over the world which increased their commercial value through the roof - using that increase they were able to invest in their squad

It was all built off the back of their success though, if the trophies wouldn't have been rolling in half of that wouldn't have happened.

They were already planning the building using bank loans but used Premier Sky money. They were buying players in prep for it.

We threw it all away on rubbish and did nothing with our stadium or jump on the market bandwagon.

As the undisputed most successful English club back then then, Liverpool could have exploited the commercial side and exposure of the premier league alot better back then even if we weren't winning. Heavy player investments and expansion of the stadium could have been done. Remember, we didn't have the ultra rich clubs to deal with back then. But the club appeared to.have rested on its laurels too long and by the time it realises, not only did we have traditionally successful clubs like man u and arsenal to contend, we also have to contend with the sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea and city.

Buck Rodgers » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:43 am wrote:
This "revenue" rubbish is what we need to buy players

This "revenue" rubbish is what the mancs did 24 years ago to build up their stadium , to build up their squad - it's what we failed to do

Nowhere does it say that revenue is a main priority ?!

They are doing what is needed to attempt to build the club up. They are doing what we should have done years ago

Nice try.

I never said revenue wasn't important, all I'm saying is that I simply don't care about it as a success metric.

For some stupid reason a lot on here seem to be correlating financial revenue with success when Yakka has clearly pointed out that it's actually the reverse. Success brings in financial rewards, something the yanks have overlooked in their whole flawed model.

I have spent countless posts debating why their model is rubbish, personally I just think it's pseudo mathematical nonsense. They want to ensure we stay profitable above anything else, the theory that as our profits go up so will our purchasing power and the ability to buy better players. As I said to Metalhead a while ago, the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can remain profitable, keep the net spend down on players (like we have seen with FSG) but not win any trophies. The more gulliable, like yourself, will buy into the notion that one day things will change because as our profit keeps growing so will our player transfer spend.   

The main problem is that our main competitors around us have created an uneven playing field, either heavily putting themselves into debt (Manure) or completely sufficient on their rich owners (Chelsea and City). That's why this model will never work, we will always be playing catch-up to them in terms of our results on the field. The suggestion that they will one day self implode is also a fallacy as all 3 remain just as powerful as they have throughout the last few years. And so what do we do? Buy young players "for the future" and pin our hopes they will "come good" only to see them sold off when they hit their peak (Suarez) or a few years away from it (Sterling). And everyone doesn't bat an eyelid because the PR machine goes into over-drive reminding us how much better off we will be without them. 

And simply that's why we have seen the following:

6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and 6th

That trend won't change.

maguskwt » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:20 am wrote:As the undisputed most successful English club back then then, Liverpool could have exploited the commercial side and exposure of the premier league alot better back then even if we weren't winning. Heavy player investments and expansion of the stadium could have been done. Remember, we didn't have the ultra rich clubs to deal with back then. But the club appeared to.have rested on its laurels too long and by the time it realises, not only did we have traditionally successful clubs like man u and arsenal to contend, we also have to contend with the sugar daddy clubs like Chelsea and city.

FSG came along in 2010, there is nothing they could have done about our mistakes in the past, espeically the 80s and 90s

All that happened is they unfortunately acquired all the legacy of past mis-management mistakes.

The problem I have had with them, is that the squad needed significant improvement when they came in. If you look at our net-spend since they have been in charge, I believe it's under $30m per year, we haven't come close to making a dent in being more competitive than we were in 2010. 

As owners they have ultimately failed us.

Just a few points

You seems to have forgotten to mention Arsenal ? They run the club using the same self sufficient model we do

Our net spend is £140 mil and gross is £350 mil - which ever way it's looked at the owners have spent £350 mil on players - Liverpool have trotted out the net spend excuse for years now - I believe we are currently 2nd or 3rd highest net spend in the last 3/4 years.

Man Utd Debt is on the purchase of the club - they work with massive profits built up through being a self sufficient club - they worked to the same model we did - and they still do. The profits they gained helps them buy players.

Next point - FFP , unfortunately FFP rules exist where a club cannot spend beyond its means - owners cant dip into their pockets to spend millions on players - they have to be bought using money generated by the club

Debt - when the owners took over we had over £250 mil debt to service , that has been reduced now to around £50mil whilst we have still be able to buy players even though sailing close to breaking FFP

The model the owners are following is what clubs will have to follow - no more owners dipping into pocket , clubs generating their spending money , investing in youth to save spending millions. It needs to be done - the issue is it takes time and we do need to play catch up but some supporters don't have the patience

So you can enlighten us on what model the owners should use that keeps us out of debt and also within FFP rules ?

Buck Rodgers » Wed Jul 01, 2015 4:32 am wrote:Just a few points

You seems to have forgotten to mention Arsenal ? They run the club using the same self sufficient model we do

Our net spend is £140 mil and gross is £350 mil - which ever way it's looked at the owners have spent £350 mil on players - Liverpool have trotted out the net spend excuse for years now - I believe we are currently 2nd or 3rd highest net spend in the last 3/4 years.

Man Utd Debt is on the purchase of the club - they work with massive profits built up through being a self sufficient club - they worked to the same model we did - and they still do. The profits they gained helps them buy players.

Next point - FFP , unfortunately FFP rules exist where a club cannot spend beyond its means - owners cant dip into their pockets to spend millions on players - they have to be bought using money generated by the club

Debt - when the owners took over we had over £250 mil debt to service , that has been reduced now to around £50mil whilst we have still be able to buy players even though sailing close to breaking FFP

The model the owners are following is what clubs will have to follow - no more owners dipping into pocket , clubs generating their spending money , investing in youth to save spending millions. It needs to be done - the issue is it takes time and we do need to play catch up but some supporters don't have the patience

So you can enlighten us on what model the owners should use that keeps us out of debt and also within FFP rules ?

Good points, but unfortunately I have countered all of them in the past.

Arsenal - What have they won in the last 10 years? They have followed a very similar model and saw NO success. I don't count 1 FA cup as success. Only recently when there has been pressure on Wenger to do more than qualify for Europe have they started spending large amounts of money on just one player like an Ozil or Sanchez, etc. But this is recent. And has more to do with the fact that competitors around them are forcing them to, rather than anything else. The fact that they have continued to grow their revenue and NOT win anything kind of proves my point doesn't it. 

Net Spend - Same argument Metalhead attempted but fell flat. You can't look at Net Spend over the last 3 or 4 years, it paints a distorted picture of which club is spending what. You need to look at Net Spend since the Russian took over at Chelsea and then average that out, you also need to do the same thing with the Sheiks at City to compare where the Americans have let us down. As I have pointed out Chelsea and City's net spend in the first 3 or 4 seasons eclipse ANYTHING that the yanks have spent in the time they have been here or will continue to do so over the next projected 10 years! When you look at the fact that both spent over 1 billion in players within that short period of time, spending 350 million is nothing to get excited over.......

Manure - Don't know why you think it's the same model? They are NOTHING like us. There are no age restrictions on players. They don't appear to have a rigid salary structure on players wages. And most importantly there doesn't seem to be transfer restrictions on single player purchases. Van Persie 24m, Shaw 27m, Fellaini 28m, Herrera 29m, Depay 31m, Mata 37m and Di Maria 59m!!! These numbers would give Henry and Werner multiple heart attacks. Simply put the Glazers don't impose ridiculous restrictions on on-field success. To our detriment FSG have and continue to do so.

FSG model - I hate to break it to you but clubs don't need to follow the FSG model. Hence the watering down of FFP and why we will continue to see clubs like City bought by billionaires, circum-navigating these restrictions in the future. And the patience you are crying out for is based on a fantasy, a pipe dream. As i said a gulliable supporter who thinks that at some point in time things will turn around for us. Every time I hear this ridiculous argument I can't help but think of Bart Simpson in that remedial class saying "Let me get this straight. We’re behind the rest of our class and we’re going to catch up to them by going slower than they are?" Same thing with us, we are behind the top 4 but we are going to buy kids and dross to catch-up 

Anyway still waiting to hear how this is an improvement:

6th, 8th, 7th, 2nd and 6th

we still exist. we nearly went into administration and up in a cloud of smoke.

Arsenal - they have spent 10 years restricting what they spend to allow them to build a new stadium - in that period they have qualified for the CL every season whilst also challenging for the title - in recent years more money has been available as the income increase - that's why they have increased the money they have spent on players - they should have done better in those years but the manager kept buying the wrong players. The Model has given them the platform to challenge for trophies. They have won two trophies in the last two seasons.

Net Spend - when discussing the current owners yes you can look at the last 4 years - because those are the years the current owners are responsible for. What City and Chelsea spent in the 3/4 years of their reign is irrelevant because they spent without any fear of FFP - our owners don't have disposable income. Is that what you want ? Oil money ? A club relying on a single person putting their money into the club.

Man Utd - they spent two decades spending what they earn off the pitch plus what money they earned from player sales - until this season their net spend was lower than ours. They spent their money on the stadium and buying players but spent what they earned.

What are these restrictions you keep going on about ? We don't have age , wage or transfer fee restrictions - if you suggest there are then please provide the proof.

FFP - the relaxation of the rules didn't effect the amount you can spend beyond your means - we were close to being fined and punished under FFP

They have improved the standing of the club , reduced the debt , starting to build the stadium and increasing the exposure and income enabling the manager to buy players.

Can you please tell us what model we should follow if you believe there model is wrong

I thought I'd just check how the Whinge Committee were doing after our latest purchases. And what do you know I was scrolling up the page and found somebody quoting our league position over the last few years. At this stage I didn't know who wrote the post but I took a calculated guess. And yes I was right. The chief fkg whingebag is still at it   

Eds you make Benny the Goon look quite reasonable and lets face it he really was a bit of a dick !!!

Have a beer ffs     

Just for the record Liverpool's net spend over the last five years is £33m per season and 4th highest in the Premiership against Man United who are top with a net spend of £57m per season over the last five. You talk as if £165m simply grows on trees. The more you write the more you give the impression that you are financially clueless. The problem in my opinion is not what they have spent but very largely what they have been advised to spend it on.

Oh well - back to my summer break !!

devaney » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:18 pm wrote:I thought I'd just check how the Whinge Committee were doing after our latest purchases. And what do you know I was scrolling up the page and found somebody quoting our league position over the last few years. At this stage I didn't know who wrote the post but I took a calculated guess. And yes I was right. The chief fkg whingebag is still at it   :D

Eds you make Benny the Goon look quite reasonable and lets face it he really was a bit of a dick !!!

Have a beer ffs     

Just for the record Liverpool's net spend over the last five years is £33m per season and 4th highest in the Premiership against Man United who are top with a net spend of £57m per season over the last five. You talk as if £165m simply grows on trees. The more you write the more you give the impression that you are financially clueless. The problem in my opinion is not what they have spent but very largely what they have been advised to spend it on.

Oh well - back to my summer break !!

that is a quality post sir!

love it.

leeroy74 » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:32 pm wrote:

devaney » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:18 pm wrote:I thought I'd just check how the Whinge Committee were doing after our latest purchases. And what do you know I was scrolling up the page and found somebody quoting our league position over the last few years. At this stage I didn't know who wrote the post but I took a calculated guess. And yes I was right. The chief fkg whingebag is still at it   :D

Eds you make Benny the Goon look quite reasonable and lets face it he really was a bit of a dick !!!

Have a beer ffs     

Just for the record Liverpool's net spend over the last five years is £33m per season and 4th highest in the Premiership against Man United who are top with a net spend of £57m per season over the last five. You talk as if £165m simply grows on trees. The more you write the more you give the impression that you are financially clueless. The problem in my opinion is not what they have spent but very largely what they have been advised to spend it on.

Oh well - back to my summer break !!

that is a quality post sir!

love it.

+2