Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

ShamoBuc

Just saw the goals, Mané makes some difference. He is our most important player for the season ahead. He can unlock defences, something we sadly lacked against Burnley glad sturridge got a few.
Have a feeling this thread is going to be like a see saw for a while.
Sahko has either continued to píss off Klopp or the rumours are only that. He can be a beast but I reckon he can be an awful eejit too. I would like him to get a good run in the team as there is fierce potential.

Harry Palmr

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Would a Mane/Origi/Sturridge from three work? Danny boy has no pace but the others have loads so if he just stands in the right place hopefully the other can create space and passes for him to tap in.

Danny boy can make goals as he is, can also create space& beat players.
He's far more than s tap in merchant.
He's never relied on pace. That accepted, he's not as crippled as this part of the net would have you believe.

Where would you put firmino BTW ?

rob316

Sturridge our best striker nothing new there. His legs are gone but he is still the best finisher at the club by some distance.
Let origi and mane provide the pace and let Sturridge be the fox in the box.

Mane looks the player we have lacked for years even before sterling.

Charlie19

shamrock55 wrote: »

Just don't think he is good enough tbh

I have to say... i wasn't a fan of him myself, I thought 16M was crazy money:eek: for him at the time.

But now he looks short on confidence, or maybe struggling with some sort of injury. Something is definitely up with him. He's miles away from the player we saw in the nearly season.

Or quite simply, he's not a CM/DM and gave his best while deployed as an attacking MF and if thats the case, I think there is far better options in the squad for that position.

BorneTobyWilde

Mane is best signing since sliced bread.
He really knows how to play and be effective
I really can't believe the quality of other players in squad
They are being shown up by Mane
The gap is wide

Pyjamarama

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Jesus... people complain about how we can't beat teams who sit back and defend. A team tries that and we tonk them and you won't give them any credit...

Burton were poor but we made them poor. We were great. The difference in the movement of the front 3 with Mane out there. When you have someone who can beat a man so easily it creates space for everyone. Fingers crossed he stays fit cause if he does he'll be some signing.

What awful awful muck you spout. Francie was spot on.

Agent Coulson

Crazy stat here.


12 – Liverpool have allowed the opposition fewer shots (12) than any other PL team in 2016-17, yet have conceded a joint-high 5 goals. Soft.
— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) August 23, 2016

murpho999

Augeo wrote: »

Ok, let's pretend club bought for £800m, largely borrowed as the purchaser doesn't fancy tieing up there own money in the club and they are able to borrow as the club has healthy revenue streams.

They buy some players of the Pogba, Costa ilk...... £50m + signings and £200k/week wages. The club fails to qualify for the CL and the clubs earnings are eaten up by player wages & installments on the transfer fees and of course the owners pay their loan back using club income too.

Other clubs are either bankrolled by their owners or don't have to use some of their revenue pay back their purchase cost and also have less of a wage bill.... it transpires that we get outbid on our targets by the Spurs & West Hams of the league consistently so we end up with the 10th/12th best squad in the PL ...... we end up not performing to that level and finish 14th/15th in the league, European qualification becomes a distant dream.

Why assume that the club will be straddled with debt?

Can you not see that FSG have successfully run the club as a prudent financial business, increased the worth of the club through increased commercial activity, timing of ownership through increased TV deals at the cost of success on the pitch and not realising that football success would actually increase the club's value as well.

Look at City and Chelsea, do they have the same fan base as Liverpool worldwide? I would argue Liverpool has more than them combined yet both clubs have more revenues than Liverpool.
How has this been done, if you think they are just bankrolled by the owners?

It's all about attitude. Utd do the Pogba deal, admittedly crazy money, with the attitude that the purchase will lead to more commercial activity due to merchandising sales and publicity whilst Liverpool hover around the second tier and squander funds on players around £15-30m.

Moneys tied up at the time on useless signings such as Markovic, Allen, Alberto, Illori, Aspas, Benteke, Ballotelli, Lambert, Borini, Assaidi etc is a damning indictment of their policy and could have brought about more success on and off the field by stepping up to the next tier for a few players.

K-9 wrote: »

@murpho, everybody should care the club is self sufficient, otherwise Hicks, near administration, that stuff that happened 5 years ago.

Nobody wants that to happen, but under Hicks, we signed Torres, reached CL final, and qualified top 4 every season bar 1. No reason we cannot run the club in a similar manner with better capitalised owners.

This season so far our net spend is -£2m in the season when increased TV deal kicks in. There's something wrong with that spend figure, whilst the manager juggles players around to cover Left back.

dogbert27

Does anybody know wtf is going on with Henderson in this picture? Looking a bit of a wuss! :pac:

~Rebel~

dogbert27 wrote: »

Does anybody know wtf is going on with Henderson in this picture? Looking a bit of a wuss! :pac:

It's just an expression mid action shot, everyones gonna look stupid.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Why assume that the club will be straddled with debt?



Look at City and Chelsea, do they have the same fan base as Liverpool worldwide? I would argue Liverpool has more than them combined yet both clubs have more revenues than Liverpool.
How has this been done, if you think they are just bankrolled by the owners?

.....There's something wrong with that spend figure, whilst the manager juggles players around to cover Left back.

You asked why should we care if the club is self sufficient financially, I gave reasons why.

Our revenue isn't what it could be due to years of unprudent ownership per FSG.

FSG aren't perfect, no doubt. That doesn't mean having the club on a sound financial footing should be scorned at.

I didn't mention city or Chelsea, my speel above was hypothetical and bank rolled by owners was one option I mentioned.
It's a tad ironic you highlight their revenue streams while questioning financial sufficiency.
I can understand you don't see the benefits
I agree with the LB something wrong, I just don't know what.

klose

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Crazy stat here.


12 – Liverpool have allowed the opposition fewer shots (12) than any other PL team in 2016-17, yet have conceded a joint-high 5 goals. Soft.
— OptaJoe (@OptaJoe) August 23, 2016

I've also seen the stat a few times posted about how mignolet is quite often beaten with the first shot he faces per game, grim reading in any case.

dogbert27

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It's just an expression mid action shot, everyones gonna look stupid.

Maybe I should have put it in the humor thread. My first thought was that a toilet could be photoshopped behind him or else have him swinging from a vine!!

shotamoose

murpho999 wrote: »

It's all about attitude. Utd do the Pogba deal, admittedly crazy money, with the attitude that the purchase will lead to more commercial activity due to merchandising sales and publicity whilst Liverpool hover around the second tier and squander funds on players around £15-30m.

No it isn't. United already earn about £100m a year more in revenues than Liverpool do, so they can afford to buy the equivalent of an extra Pogba a year. For the past several few years Liverpool have usually had to buy several players a year to rebuild the squad, and given nobody knows how signings will turn out it just wasn't sensible to concentrate that money onto 'fewer, better' signings. What you're talking about is going into debt to make big signings in the hope that it buys success on the field that will create higher earnings. I shouldn't have to point out the examples of clubs that have tried that and failed badly.

Moneys tied up at the time on useless signings such as Markovic, Allen, Alberto, Illori, Aspas, Benteke, Ballotelli, Lambert, Borini, Assaidi etc is a damning indictment of their policy and could have brought about more success on and off the field by stepping up to the next tier for a few players.

That would be a brilliant strategy if Liverpool only needed a couple of new players and somehow knew which ones were going to turn out well. But - newsflash! - nobody knows. Coutinho, Sturridge, Can, Clyne, Mane and Firmino were all plucked from a similar 'mid-table or misfits' pool, were all described as underwhelming or over-priced when signed and yet I think they're all turning out pretty well. They're exactly the kind of deals we needed to be making at that stage, not splurging £100m on one or two players in the hope that they solved all our problems. If this batch of new signings works we'll have a strong squad and maybe then we can start aiming higher in terms of signings, so far the general strategy has been the right one, especially when combined with a manager like Klopp.

One_Of_Shanks

Really hope Can's injury isn't a bad one. We're a much better side with him in it. Love watching Mane play. He's a defender's worst bloody nightmare.

SlickRic

I'm convinced that if Liverpool had Mané in the team on Saturday, we'd have got something out of Burnley, which is a sad indictment on a lot of our transfer policy.

For all the technical players we have in the attacking positions, we'd nobody to break the lines.

Mané's fitness could make or break the season, which is a precarious position to have ourselves in.

murpho999

Augeo wrote: »

You asked why should we care if the club is self sufficient financially, I gave reasons why.

Our revenue isn't what it could be due to years of unprudent ownership per FSG.

FSG aren't perfect, no doubt. That doesn't mean having the club on a sound financial footing should be scorned at.

I didn't mention city or Chelsea, my speel above was hypothetical and bank rolled by owners was one option I mentioned.
It's a tad ironic you highlight their revenue streams while questioning financial sufficiency.
I can understand you don't see the benefits
I agree with the LB something wrong, I just don't know what.

When have FSG managed the club imprudently? They have done the opposite.
My point about City and Chelsea is that they are also financially sufficient when you see how much bigger their revenues are compared to ours and with a smaller fanbase.

My point is that a different strategy could be used, to spend more on the pitch as investment, and make the team more successful and therefore qualify for CL on a regular basis, win titles more frequently, and that would then increase revenues and profits.

shotamoose wrote: »

No it isn't. United already earn about £100m a year more in revenues than Liverpool do, so they can afford to buy the equivalent of an extra Pogba a year. For the past several few years Liverpool have usually had to buy several players a year to rebuild the squad, and given nobody knows how signings will turn out it just wasn't sensible to concentrate that money onto 'fewer, better' signings. What you're talking about is going into debt to make big signings in the hope that it buys success on the field that will create higher earnings. I shouldn't have to point out the examples of clubs that have tried that and failed badly.



That would be a brilliant strategy if Liverpool only needed a couple of new players and somehow knew which ones were going to turn out well. But - newsflash! - nobody knows. Coutinho, Sturridge, Can, Clyne, Mane and Firmino were all plucked from a similar 'mid-table or misfits' pool, were all described as underwhelming or over-priced when signed and yet I think they're all turning out pretty well. They're exactly the kind of deals we needed to be making at that stage, not splurging £100m on one or two players in the hope that they solved all our problems. If this batch of new signings works we'll have a strong squad and maybe then we can start aiming higher in terms of signings, so far the general strategy has been the right one, especially when combined with a manager like Klopp.

Even the players you are deeming successes are inconsistent and not at the highest level.

Coutinho: Arguably the best player but inconsistent.
Sturridge: Our Best striker but unlicky with injuries.

Can: Unproven at highest level.
Clyne: Looks solid.
Mane: Too early to judge if he is a major success.
Firmino: Talented but inconsistent.


Remember all out signings in the last 6 years have one just won one league cup between them and qualified for CL once.

League positions since FSG take over, 6th, 8th,7th, 2nd, 6th, 8th.

That's a total football failure to me, regardless of how financially effective we are.

The club is using the Arsenal approach to increase asset value to lead to a profitable sale, despite what they say, not football success.

NukaCola

Deleted User wrote: »

What awful awful muck you spout. Francie was spot on.

Its a bit harsh to say someone spouts awful awful muck just because you dont agree with it.

I think they both are valid points. Burton were poor but we still needed to put in a good performance and did. Also the point on Mané was spot on, he does make our attack more dangerous.

Devilman40k

SlickRic wrote: »

I'm convinced that if Liverpool had Mané in the team on Sunday, we'd have got something out of Burnley,

Wouldn't have helped us against them on Saturday though

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

When have FSG managed the club imprudently? .........My point is that a different strategy could be used, to spend more on the pitch as investment, and make the team more successful and therefore qualify for CL on a regular basis, win titles more frequently, and that would then increase revenues and profits

I meant pre FSG, not per FSG, apologies.

So the piece in bold suggests you do care if the club is self sufficient or not?

Again, the potential risk is that spending more on the pitch doesn't guarantee the team being more successful, sure you listed how FSG wasted money on loads of players. You seem to be contradicting yourself, that's putting it nicely.

NukaCola

SlickRic wrote: »

I'm convinced that if Liverpool had Mané in the team on Sunday, we'd have got something out of Burnley, which is a sad indictment on a lot of our transfer policy.

For all the technical players we have in the attacking positions, we'd nobody to break the lines.

Mané's fitness could make or break the season, which is a precarious position to have ourselves in.

The african cup of nations 2017 start in January so he'll miss a month anyway i presume.

murpho999

Augeo wrote: »

I meant pre FSG, not per FSG, apologies.

So the piece in bold suggests you do care if the club is self sufficient or not?

Of course, the club has to be profitable to survive, but there are different ways to do it.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Of course, the club has to be profitable to survive, but there are different ways to do it.

Did you ever hear of Leeds Utd?

murpho999

Augeo wrote: »

Did you ever hear of Leeds Utd?

Yes, and they weren't financially sufficient, think you need to re-read my posts.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

Yes, and they weren't financially sufficient, think you need to re-read my posts.

Well to be fair you seem to have changed your tune since you posted this one...

murpho999 wrote: »

Why would you, as a fan care if the club is self sufficient? What does it matter?

Clubs in League of Ireland or League 2 can be self sufficent, it does not mean they are successful.

What's wrong with having money. Do you think Utd, Chelsea or City fans lose sleep looking at their recent title wins due to having more money than other clubs.
I'm supporting Liverpool since the 70's, when they were top dogs. They made top signings and spent the money. No fan was worried about being self sufficient.

Success was winning the league and winning in Europe. Finishing 2nd was an absolute disaster and not repeated as changes were made and money spent as required.

Now FSG have managed fans expectations so much that they have amazing convinced fans that one league cup win, unexpected league challenge and the signing of a good manager is a success. Bloody hell.

murpho999

Augeo wrote: »

Well to be fair you seem to have changed your tune since you posted this one...

No I haven't.

It's all part of what FSG have done.

Years ago when Liverpool were top dogs you did not hear fans talking about net spend, or profits etc. They just happened as the club was successful.

Now, FSG seem to have successfully groomed post Hicks & Gillet traumatised supporters, that it's important to be careful with funds etc.

Hence, the losing out of targets such as Willian and Mkhitaryan and the periods of mediocrity we have had in our league performances.

FSG have made our financial performance more important than our pitch performance and they seem to be beyond reproach for it.

It's very obvious when you hear them say in the media that last week the club is not for sale at any price, but are open to an investment just days before the China rumours start.

Kimbot

Migs saved the first shot on him in the 2016/2017 campaign, after that he conceded 5 goals with the next 5 shots on target.

Thats some crazy stat I seen yesterday, migs is supposed to be a shot stopper and 1 in 6 is not good enough tbh. I hope Karius is back asap.

ush

murpho999 wrote: »

Years ago when Liverpool were top dogs you did not hear fans talking about net spend, or profits etc. They just happened as the club was successful.

You didn't hear anyone talking about net spend in the eighties. Nobody was online with the club's year end accounts either. There were no foreign investors. Times change.

murpho999

ush wrote: »

You didn't hear anyone talking about net spend in the eighties. Nobody was online with the club's year end accounts either. There were no foreign investors. Times change.

Yes of course times have changed but success of football clubs is still judged by trophies not balance sheets.

Talisman

murpho999 wrote: »

Nobody wants that to happen, but under Hicks, we signed Torres, reached CL final, and qualified top 4 every season bar 1. No reason we cannot run the club in a similar manner with better capitalised owners.

Torres and Mascherano were signed with borrowed money. In the end players were sold to cover the debts, the club was effectively asset stripped. In hindsight, if David Moores was willing to take out a loan of £20M on the club, Torres could have been signed without the need for the leveraged buyout.

Hicks and Gillet had no influence on reaching the 2007 Champions League Final. They were passengers along for the ride at the time, they took ownership of the club in February 2007 which was after the transfer window.

Rafa Benitez had built the team that reached the final under the financial constraints of the ownership of David Moores. Four months later, after the final Benitez began to lift the lid and provide insight into the goings on of the new owners.

The leveraged buyout of the club didn't result in a single trophy being won. The club lost its place in the top 4 when the asset stripping of the squad began to impact on the first team.

Klopp is in the process of building a team, just as Benitez was 10 years ago. If people want a club which signs players with household names then they need to look elsewhere.

Talisman

murpho999 wrote: »

My point about City and Chelsea is that they are also financially sufficient when you see how much bigger their revenues are compared to ours and with a smaller fanbase.

In Man City's case revenues have been inflated by pumping money into the club via Abu Dhabi proxies.

murpho999

Talisman wrote: »

Torres and Mascherano were signed with borrowed money. In the end players were sold to cover the debts, the club was effectively asset stripped. In hindsight, if David Moores was willing to take out a loan of £20M on the club, Torres could have been signed without the need for the leveraged buyout.

Hicks and Gillet had no influence on reaching the 2007 Champions League Final. They were passengers along for the ride at the time, they took ownership of the club in February 2007 which was after the transfer window.

Rafa Benitez had built the team that reached the final under the financial constraints of the ownership of David Moores. Four months later, after the final Benitez began to lift the lid and provide insight into the goings on of the new owners.

The leveraged buyout of the club didn't result in a single trophy being won. The club lost its place in the top 4 when the asset stripping of the squad began to impact on the first team.

Klopp is in the process of building a team, just as Benitez was 10 years ago. If people want a club which signs players with household names then they need to look elsewhere.

Yes, we all know the history and I'm not advocating a return to that. But FSG could be doing more than what they are.

Talisman wrote: »

In Man City's case revenues have been inflated by pumping money into the club via Abu Dhabi proxies.

Where do you get that from?

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

Of course, the club has to be profitable to survive, but there are different ways to do it.

Please elaborate? If you spend more than you take in how would the club be profitable and how would it pay it's bills?

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Please elaborate? If you spend more than you take in how would the club be profitable and how would it pay it's bills?

If they had invested more in players, then we would be more successful on the pitch and would be in the Champion's League more thus increasing revenues.

Higher level and more successful players leads to more shirts and merchandising sold, thus increasing revenues.

More success attracts larger sponsorship and commercial deals, thus increasing revenues.

It's not a difficult concept.

A club like Liverpool should not have a minus €2m spend in a window like it has now.

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

Years ago when Liverpool were top dogs you did not hear fans talking about net spend, or profits etc. They just happened as the club was successful.

In the 80's once you got to the top it was a lot easier to stay there. There was comparatively little coverage on TV so those teams at the top who got the TV exposure earned all the big advertising money and it wasn't common for new owners to come in, throw money at mid or low league club and win the league.

That all changed when Jack Walker pumped massive money into Blackburn who'd been a sleeping giant and showed the world that you could quickly take more or less any club to a shot at the 1st division title providing you didn't mind losing a ton of cash along the way. When the Premier League came along and started throwing big TV money at all PL clubs you now had a situation where the established top dogs (Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal) suddenly had a swarm of well financed competitors who quickly caught up and the addition of Russian/Oil/Chinese billionaire owners has only accelerated that further.

I for one would much prefer to be a self sustaining club than a play thing for a oligarch. In the short term it is indeed frustrating but long term many of these owners will move on to new projects leaving broken clubs behind e.g. Portsmouth, Blackbrun, Leeds etc.

Klopp believes in the FSG ownership model and they in him. He has committed to a 6 year contract and is going to build a team rather than buy ready made team. He isn't interested in buying established players at inflated prices. Your accusation that FSG aren't spending the money assumes Klopp is asking for it and not getting it. That's simply incorrect as Klopp himself has confirmed. Do you not believe him?

Sure it will take longer but in the end the success will be sweeter and I'm going to enjoy the journey.

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

If they had invested more in players, then we would be more successful on the pitch and would be in the Champion's League more thus increasing revenues.

Higher level and more successful players leads to more shirts and merchandising sold, thus increasing revenues.

More success attracts larger sponsorship and commercial deals, thus increasing revenues.

It's not a difficult concept.

A club like Liverpool should not have a minus €2m spend in a window like it has now.

Are you Peter Ridsdale in disguise?

The only flaw in your strategy is it implies the top four spending clubs will always get in the CL places. It's the kind of BS what was spun to the guys who bought Nott's County in 2009 and gave Sven-Göran Eriksson a £2m a year contract to buy a team which would be challenging for the PL within a few years :rolleyes:

Can you run that by Ranieri and see what he thinks? Or LVG last year? Or Abramovich?

It's hilarious that an Irish Liverpool fan in particular would advocate a strategy of "throw a ton of money at it and it will work out".

You're not an ex Anglo Irish Bank salesman by any chance?

Talisman

murpho999 wrote: »

Where do you get that from?

The club's four major sponsors have one thing in common.

In 2009, Manchester City increased their commercial revenue by over 400% on the previous year. The only commercial deal that didn't go off the charts was that of the shirt manufacturer. Etihad Airways, Etisalat, Aabar, and TCA Abu Dhabi each signed deals with the club which were worth more than the club's entire commercial revenue the previous year.

Etihad Airways is wholly owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi. In 2011, Etihad effectively paid £400M for the stadium naming rights for 10 years. The deal was worth more than twice that of the previous record world wide. UEFA came down hard on the sponsorship deal and Man City restructured/renegotiated the deal with Etihad. It's new value is £80M per year.

Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, branded trade name Etisalat is majority owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi.

Aabar Investments is owned by IPIC. IPIC is the International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC), which is wholly owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi.

TCA Abu Dhabi is the Abu Dhabi Tourism & Culture Authority.

Sheikh Mansour, is the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Are you Peter Ridsdale in disguise?

The only flaw in your strategy is it implies the top four spending clubs will always get in the CL places. It's the kind of BS what was spun to the guys who bought Nott's County in 2009 and gave Sven-Göran Eriksson a £2m a year contract to buy a team which would be challenging for the PL within a few years :rolleyes:

Can you run that by Ranieri and see what he thinks? Or LVG last year? Or Abramovich?

It's hilarious that an Irish Liverpool fan in particular would advocate a strategy of "throw a ton of money at it and it will work out".

You're not an ex Anglo Irish Bank salesman by any chance?

At no point have a said that Liverpool should be throwing silly money around but there should be more investment in players than there has been. There is enough money in the club to do that but again Liverpool fans believe the money is not there and we can't buy expensive players or pay top wages.

FSG are not running the club to compete at the highest level as has been proven in the last six years with one top 4 finish.

Our most expensive signing is still Andy Carroll from 2011 despite major increases in player prices since then. Crystal Palace are now spending £30 on players now.

There will always be blips, such as Leicester or Utd andChelsea dropping out but they have consistently won titles over the last 6 years and played CL football whilst we have done nothing.

murpho999

murpho999 wrote: »

If they had invested more in players, then we would be more successful on the pitch and would be in the Champion's League more thus increasing revenues.

Higher level and more successful players leads to more shirts and merchandising sold, thus increasing revenues.

More success attracts larger sponsorship and commercial deals, thus increasing revenues.

It's not a difficult concept.

A club like Liverpool should not have a minus €2m spend in a window like it has now.

I don't think you have....

Augeo wrote: »

Did you ever hear of Leeds Utd?

The net spend from the Summer is quite likely due to Klopp imo, possibly FSG curtailing spend but more likely Klopp given that they always spend a wad (net) in all previous summer windows iirc.

Talisman

Augeo wrote: »

The net spend from the Summer is quite likely due to Klopp imo, possibly FSG curtailing spend but more likely Klopp given that they always spend a wad (net) in all previous summer windows iirc.

A few days ago Tom Werner said the money is available if Klopp wants to buy players.

Tom Werner on Liverpool's summer signings and funds available to Jurgen Klopp (Liverpool Echo, August 20th)

I think Klopp will only sign somebody he considers to be the right player and he won't pay over the odds to sign them.

I will put my hand up and concede I don't tend to overly criticise the regime

I'm happy with FSG and I'm happy with Klopp, should we not buy a LB I'll quite likely see improvement in Moreno and/or Milner as the season goes on and not focus on their shortcomings :pac:

LuckyLloyd

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

In the 80's once you got to the top it was a lot easier to stay there. There was comparatively little coverage on TV so those teams at the top who got the TV exposure earned all the big advertising money and it wasn't common for new owners to come in, throw money at mid or low league club and win the league.

That all changed when Jack Walker pumped massive money into Blackburn who'd been a sleeping giant and showed the world that you could quickly take more or less any club to a shot at the 1st division title providing you didn't mind losing a ton of cash along the way. When the Premier League came along and started throwing big TV money at all PL clubs you now had a situation where the established top dogs (Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal) suddenly had a swarm of well financed competitors who quickly caught up and the addition of Russian/Oil/Chinese billionaire owners has only accelerated that further.

I for one would much prefer to be a self sustaining club than a play thing for a oligarch. In the short term it is indeed frustrating but long term many of these owners will move on to new projects leaving broken clubs behind e.g. Portsmouth, Blackbrun, Leeds etc.

Klopp believes in the FSG ownership model and they in him. He has committed to a 6 year contract and is going to build a team rather than buy ready made team. He isn't interested in buying established players at inflated prices. Your accusation that FSG aren't spending the money assumes Klopp is asking for it and not getting it. That's simply incorrect as Klopp himself has confirmed. Do you not believe him?

Sure it will take longer but in the end the success will be sweeter and I'm going to enjoy the journey.

Chelsea have become pretty self sufficient and have utilised availability of capital to engineer innovative revenue streams in the transfer market. Given the massive money in the Premiership right now the Leeds and Blackburn cases are no longer really relevant to our situation. If one of Sky or BT go out of business or something outlandish occurs that drastically changes the current market structures around football then financial prudence to the level we are operating within would pay dividends. But when that's the black swan event you're worried about, I'd rather live like a lion right now. A net positive in the transfer market this summer of all summers is utterly indefensible.

shotamoose

murpho999 wrote: »

If they had invested more in players, then we would be more successful on the pitch and would be in the Champion's League more thus increasing revenues.

Higher level and more successful players leads to more shirts and merchandising sold, thus increasing revenues.

More success attracts larger sponsorship and commercial deals, thus increasing revenues.

It's not a difficult concept.

A club like Liverpool should not have a minus €2m spend in a window like it has now.

So if FSG are only interested in increasing the club's financial value like you say, why aren't they following this guaranteed money-making strategy? Seems odd, right?

murpho999

shotamoose wrote: »

So if FSG are only interested in increasing the club's financial value like you say, why aren't they following this guaranteed money-making strategy? Seems odd, right?

They have taken the conservative option which is completely logical for risk adverse businessmen.

That's the difference with sports and business. They are trying to get to the holy grail of Champion's League without putting the money in like other clubs have.

Do people think that FSG are just in this for the crack and are not trying to build up an asset for an eventual sale?

Sappy404

jonnycivic wrote: »

Migs saved the first shot on him in the 2016/2017 campaign, after that he conceded 5 goals with the next 5 shots on target.

Thats some crazy stat I seen yesterday, migs is supposed to be a shot stopper and 1 in 6 is not good enough tbh. I hope Karius is back asap.

'Back'? Karius has yet to make a competitive appearance for us. Many have never even seen him play but are clamoring for him as if he's Buffon in his prime.

People are looking at the stats for shots on target against Migs in the first few games and the number of goals he has conceded and assuming he's been solely at fault. Don't get me wrong, he needs to be replaced, but he's not responsible for the opportunities presented to the opposition in these last 2 league games, nor the time or the space allowed for the opposition to score from them.

Karius is very much an unknown for most of us at this point. I'd feel much better about him coming in if we had a proper functional central midfield, a significant upgrade at left back and backup for Clyne that wasn't Andre Wisdom or Trent Alexander-Arnold.

sword1

140422112119-eddie-murphy-0422-story-top.jpg
This you Murphy

Sappy404

murpho999 wrote: »

They have taken the conservative option which is completely logical for risk adverse businessmen.

That's the difference with sports and business. They are trying to get to the holy grail of Champion's League without putting the money in like other clubs have.

Do people think that FSG are just in this for the crack and are not trying to build up an asset for an eventual sale?

I think FSG are first and foremost in it for the money, but it has probably occurred to them to keep the club, what with revenue increasing dramatically since they bought it, the recruitment of their ideal manager and a new main stand about to open for further growth. You don't have to sell an asset to make money from it after all.

And the most interesting thing? The club's value has arguably tripled in that time without regular Champions League football, which is just as well considering there's no longer a small few clubs who qualify regularly. In fact, not since 2009 has the top four featured the same set of clubs for 2 seasons in a row. Furthermore, Arsenal, Leicester and Tottenham have all qualified for this season's CL without the owners breaking the bank.

The landscape of the Premier League has changed so much that FSG have tripled their investment without even achieving their stated aim. They've just hired a world-renowned manager who can significantly increase their chances of achieving it, and other clubs are showing that you don't need further investment to get there. Why would they sell now?

ricero

Have to say im happy klopp played a strong team last night and hope it continues throughout the season in these cup games. With no europe we can afford to do it

Talisman

murpho999 wrote: »

They have taken the conservative option which is completely logical for risk adverse businessmen.

That's the difference with sports and business. They are trying to get to the holy grail of Champion's League without putting the money in like other clubs have.

Do people think that FSG are just in this for the crack and are not trying to build up an asset for an eventual sale?

How have they taken the conservative option?

ricero

Have a feeling were done now bringing in players unless a loss to spurs makes us panic buy.

Would love the club to go out and splash the cash on a quality left back or centre mid