Liverpool FC Forum

Ciggy wrote:

bavlondon wrote:How much money do those Indian brothers and that Norwegian guy have? More than DIC? I hope we do not see a repeat of before where we are just sold to whoever paid most for the shares rather than who actually has more money to spend.

Mukesh Ambani is the richest Indian in the world, but it doesnt matter whos richer than who.

I just want stability at the club, for rafa or who ever is the manager to get his 1st choice targets and not having to settle for 3rd and 4th choices.

And most of all I want our club back to normal with normal people running it, and are not gobbing off in the media every 5 minutes.
I want owners that have our best interests at heart.

bigmick wrote:I think the move towads salary caps, trnasfer caps, specified numbers in a squad etc are overdue already and will become more so over the next year or two if nothing is done. As it is there are only a couple of clubs who can realistically hope to win the league. Would I feel great if our new billionaire owner had deeper pockets than anybody elses billionaire and therefore by virtue of that fact we could win the League? Not really if I'm honest, it wouldn't rank up there with our glorious past for me.

I've long said there should be a limit on the number of players you can use in a season, say 22 at the absolute most. There should be no transfers during the campaign. Of that 22, a specified number (two or three) should be young players under say 19 years of age and British. Salaries should be capped per team at a sensible figure (say 30 million a year) and if the club wants to pay two blokes 5 million a year each that's fine, although obviously that then means by definition they have to pay the other blokes less. If one of the star players breaks a leg during the season, unlucky and you must use your other players.

The effect of the above wouldn't mean any one of twenty teams could win it, but I should think it's open the thing up to at least half a dozen teams or so. It would also mean that if we had say Gerrard and Torres injured for a long period, we wouldn't be able to go out and buy two new star men at christmas, we'd have to run with it. It woulod introduce an unpredictability and an excitement into the whole thing which after the initial euphoria of the first few weeks of the season, is sadly lacking for most clubs fans. A Fulham fan for instance knows categorically that if they stay up it's a triumph, and even competing for a European spot is completely unrealistic.   

Whenever you talk about salary caps, people always say "ah but it wouldn't work because of blah blah blah". There are three points to counter that. Firstly, if they don't do something before too long people won't want to go and watch it anymore. If the clubs become toys of the billionaires, why the feck should working people shell out their hard earned to go watch it? If i wanted to do that I'd get into Formula 1. Secondly, it works in America, and in Australia with their main sports. Thirdly, when people say "it won't work" it implies the system as is is does work, which clearly it doesn't and won't in terms of supplying a sporting spectacle with anything like an even playing field.

bigmick wrote:I think the move towads salary caps, trnasfer caps, specified numbers in a squad etc are overdue already and will become more so over the next year or two if nothing is done. As it is there are only a couple of clubs who can realistically hope to win the league. Would I feel great if our new billionaire owner had deeper pockets than anybody elses billionaire and therefore by virtue of that fact we could win the League? Not really if I'm honest, it wouldn't rank up there with our glorious past for me.

I've long said there should be a limit on the number of players you can use in a season, say 22 at the absolute most. There should be no transfers during the campaign. Of that 22, a specified number (two or three) should be young players under say 19 years of age and British. Salaries should be capped per team at a sensible figure (say 30 million a year) and if the club wants to pay two blokes 5 million a year each that's fine, although obviously that then means by definition they have to pay the other blokes less. If one of the star players breaks a leg during the season, unlucky and you must use your other players.

The effect of the above wouldn't mean any one of twenty teams could win it, but I should think it's open the thing up to at least half a dozen teams or so. It would also mean that if we had say Gerrard and Torres injured for a long period, we wouldn't be able to go out and buy two new star men at christmas, we'd have to run with it. It woulod introduce an unpredictability and an excitement into the whole thing which after the initial euphoria of the first few weeks of the season, is sadly lacking for most clubs fans. A Fulham fan for instance knows categorically that if they stay up it's a triumph, and even competing for a European spot is completely unrealistic.   

Whenever you talk about salary caps, people always say "ah but it wouldn't work because of blah blah blah". There are three points to counter that. Firstly, if they don't do something before too long people won't want to go and watch it anymore. If the clubs become toys of the billionaires, why the feck should working people shell out their hard earned to go watch it? If i wanted to do that I'd get into Formula 1. Secondly, it works in America, and in Australia with their main sports. Thirdly, when people say "it won't work" it implies the system as is is does work, which clearly it doesn't and won't in terms of supplying a sporting spectacle with anything like an even playing field.