RED BEERGOGGLES » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:47 pm wrote:There exists plenty of quote's made by John Henry ,it would be slightly desperate of me if I felt the need to garner everyone ,but the main ones are
this proposed stadium ,which I am sure you will concur is becoming a real bug bear ,because we are no nearer resolving that particular problem than
when Hicks and Co were here ... John Henry was also insistent that Liverpool would eventually challenge United and Man City at the top ,but if that
means Liverpool supposedly evolving into a business model akin to Arsenals, then you only have to collate the number of times Arsenal have challenged
for the league since adapting this method ..... Or for that matter won a trophy .
To be honest, mate, I'm not sure exactly where the club is right now insofar as stadium expansion is concerned. Like everyone else, I've read comments by the owners, Ian Ayre and some of the stakeholders involved about the steps being taken to resolve the issue, but without concrete action there will always be doubts. After what took place under G&H, I can understand those doubts but we should remember that it's still relatively early in FSG's tenure and that major building projects like these do take time to come to fruition. Perhaps we should ask the question: how long is long enough before we should start to seriously doubt the owners' committment to stadium expansion? What exactly did FSG inherit and what work is needed to get the stadium project up and running? I'm not sure what the answers to these questions is but as it's a major undertakening, I tend to err on the side of believing that it may take longer than 18 months from the point of planning to the beginning of construction.
As for their wider strategy for success, I think it remains to be seen whether it can work. Having a long-term policy of only investing as much in the team as the club generates by way of revenue ought to mean we remain financially viable, but under current conditions it means we have to get more performance from fewer resources in order to compete with the top clubs. That's principally the manager's responsibility. Can his system of play and eye for talent negate the need for bigger spending? We just don't know as of yet because Rodgers has barely got his feet under the table and is still in the process of re-shaping the squad to fit his philosophy. I would personally doubt whether we could make major progress without being much more competitive on the transfer front than we have been these past few seasons but I do believe we have the potential to get past Arsenal or Spurs to make the CL. At that point, so long as we're reasonably successful in the CL, the money should begin to flow in and, if the owners are faithful to their plan, the club's transfer funds ought to increase, allowing the manager greater opportunity to strengthen the squad.
Even then, it's highly probable that any increases in revenue arising from our participation in the CL, or by any other means, won't be enough to make us competitive with clubs that have billionaire benefactors, such is the difference in spending power that is so crucial to attracting the best players. That's why the owners have made frequent reference to the FFP rules. It's clearly key to their strategy because, if enforced properly, clubs like Chelsea and Man City won't be able to outspend every other club in the division. Subject to an 'acceptable deviation level', clubs will only be able to spend what the generate in revenue. As others have pointed out, though, much depends on whether clubs are able to circumvent the rules and whether strong enough sanctions are brought bear on clubs that don't comply. There is a then a further implication if those clubs manage to establish some kind of European 'super league' where all the best players end up, but that's well down the line and not something any of us know enough about to intelligently comment upon. There are also questions as to whether these 'Sugar Daddy' owners stick around at all. Do Abramovich/Sheik Mansour and co. care enough about their respective clubs to bankroll them forevery and a day, or will there come a time in the not too distant future when they decide to depart, leaving those clubs with massive wage bills that they can't support without a replacement billionaire backer? Those clubs may be spending a tonne of money right now, but when that money dries up, clubs that have been run on a sustainable basis will have an advantage, and if FSG adhere to the strategy they have outlined, we should be one of those clubs.
.on top they also earn facility fees of £485,000 per live tv match in the uk with extras for net,phone and delayed rights.
by