Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2017/2018

J Mysterio

So Sakho acts a bit of a langer and is late for a meetup - banned for life.

Coutinho actually hands in a transfer request and asks to leave - all will be forgiven.

Osmosis Jones

It's almost as if there's more to these situations than what we know.

Mr.H

J Mysterio wrote: »

So Sakho acts a bit of a langer and is late for a meetup - banned for life.

Coutinho actually hands in a transfer request and asks to leave - all will be forgiven.

To be fair we dont know how he was acting behind closed doors. If he was as disrespectful as you would imagine you would have to be, to be this isolated, then he probably deserves it.

Gbear

J Mysterio wrote: »

So Sakho acts a bit of a langer and is late for a meetup - banned for life.

Coutinho actually hands in a transfer request and asks to leave - all will be forgiven.

Sakho walks out of the squad for a derby, takes drugs without consulting the medical personnel of the club and nearly gets banned, doesn't bother his hole with timekeeping in pre-season and celebrates with the opposition when they score against us.

And that's just what we know. Who knows how he carries on in training?

There's a persistent element of unprofessionalism from Sakho.

It mightn't be a deal breaker in all circumstances but if Klopp wants to take a hard line on it, that's fine by me.

We've never had a peep from Coutinho and you'd imagine it'll be right back to business once the window closes.
He's perfectly entitled to look for a move abroad. That doesn't excuse his behaviour in general, but one ****up isn't the sort of pattern of behaviour we've seen from Sakho.

Agent Coulson

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Ah yes the old 1-2-7 formation.

Way to defencive move the half backs further up and that really is the system we play now.

Osmosis Jones

Honestly coming up with a system that only requires one CB might be handy.

~Rebel~

J Mysterio wrote: »

So Sakho acts a bit of a langer and is late for a meetup - banned for life.

Coutinho actually hands in a transfer request and asks to leave - all will be forgiven.

I'm sure you know the difference there. Sakho is considered to actively be a disruptive element within the dressing room, while Coutinho is not. They're very different characters, and I think character is very important for Klopp.

And I very much doubt it's just Sakho acting a bit of a langer and being late a few times, I daresay it's a continuous build up of incidents and behavior over a long period of time.

It's also quite telling I think that Coutinho has not made a single public utterance throughout this whole thing, while Sakho takes every opportunity to take things public - via snapchat, twitter, instagram, or just celebrating another teams goal live on tv.

rob316

Sterling has not improved one bit since leaving Liverpool actually looks worse if anything. I'm not bitter we got firmino with his sale.

Irishmale0399

J Mysterio wrote: »

So Sakho acts a bit of a langer and is late for a meetup - banned for life.

Coutinho actually hands in a transfer request and asks to leave - all will be forgiven.

What did Sakho do exactly....we dont know and have to trust Klopp/club that his actions justify the treatment he is getting.

As for Coutinho....bit odd that one. Barcelona say publically that they want to sign Dembele and Couts and all off a sudden both players are acting more or less the same. Must say Couts is doing a better job, handing in a transfer request and being injured, Dembele gone AWOL and not answering the clubs calls, emptied the house he was renting in Dortmund...but simple fact is both players are playing the same game to a different degree to force a move to Spain.

Now Klopp is best buddys with Zorc and Watzke and still visits Dortmund regularly. Be sure that Klopp is in contact with BVB and that neither club want to see a player leave. Therefore they have asked Barca to pay a fee in full up front that they cannot pay twice as they dont have the money.

Add to that that Klopp is Dembeles landlord in Dortmund and you might imagine that Klopp knows a lot more about what Barca are at in the background than you or I.

ebbsy

Newstalk saying that Barca have given up.

Wouldn't surprise me if the sneaky ****ers wanted to pay in stages.

Over 50 years.

gimli2112

rob316 wrote: »

Sterling has not improved one bit since leaving Liverpool actually looks worse if anything. I'm not bitter we got firmino with his sale.

Yeah £50M when it was a lot of money and not a Kyle Walker was a good deal for Liverpool

~Rebel~

rob316 wrote: »

Sterling has not improved one bit since leaving Liverpool actually looks worse if anything. I'm not bitter we got firmino with his sale.

I could see him moving back down a step before too long to be honest. City have so many brilliant players in his position, can't imagine he'll be too happy over the longer term not being a starter. Very tough competition with D Silva, B Silva, Sane, Jesus, De Bruyne, and the possibility of Sanchez joining too. And what were once astronomical wages are actually probably quite affordable for a good number of clubs in the current market.

rob316

haha typical he scores and hits the ball harder than I've ever seen him do before.

sword1

rob316 wrote: »

Sterling has not improved one bit since leaving Liverpool actually looks worse if anything. I'm not bitter we got firmino with his sale.

You timed that well, I agree with you though

Mr.H

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I could see him moving back down a step before too long to be honest. City have so many brilliant players in his position, can't imagine he'll be too happy over the longer term not being a starter. Very tough competition with D Silva, B Silva, Sane, Jesus, De Bruyne, and the possibility of Sanchez joining too. And what were once astronomical wages are actually probably quite affordable for a good number of clubs in the current market.

Id have him back in a heartbeat. Dont get me wrong he wouldnt be a starter. But he would make a great back up to salah and mane

54and56

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Reports coming out Brazil that Coutinho felt pressured into handing in the transfer request by his agent and he never had the intention of going on strike.

Ah the poor pet, imagine letting someone you employ and who you give instructions to bully you like that.

Ibe mark II is having a good game

sword1

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Ah the poor pet, imagine letting someone you employ and who you give instructions to bully you like that.

That's what happens when you hire an arsenal supporter

Irishmale0399

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Ah the poor pet, imagine letting someone you employ and who you give instructions to bully you like that.

A few things have to be brought into that statement....

Yes Couts pays him however...
1. Agents often see players as cash cows and earn money with every move
2. Agents are often close to family members and help them get jobs etc. to secure the client to the agency.
3. The family often then excert pressure on the player....earn more etc. and we can all live better.
4. Most players arent very clever...hence the reason they allow agents walk all over them. They seem to think without them their career will end.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Reports coming out Brazil that Coutinho felt pressured into handing in the transfer request by his agent and he never had the intention of going on strike.


The mending of fences begins.

If that's true, then he needs to have serious words with his agent.

If it's not, it's a good cover, I'll give him that.

If it's true Barca have given up, then will he be ready for Arsenal at the weekend?

redzerdrog

rob316 wrote: »

Sterling has not improved one bit since leaving Liverpool actually looks worse if anything. I'm not bitter we got firmino with his sale.

I'd take him back in a heartbeat

BorneTobyWilde

Pesi Granola spent a lot and still can't get a home win. Everyone is dropping points, this season is going to be so close for the titel .

Rekop dog

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Pesi Granola spent a lot and still can't get a home win. Everyone is dropping points, this season is going to be so close for the titel .

Everyone says it's going to be close early every year but rarely is. Chelsea to do it with a shade of comfort again providing they keep their stars fit.

SuperTortoise

Just voicing a thought on why Klopp has not identified any plan B.
Perhaps he sees himself as being the boss here for the next ten years and as such is happy to wait for the perfect player to join rather than settling for plan B?

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

But here is the thing. What exactly have FSG done (or not done), to make you believe they are here for profit and have not been anything but good for the club?

They saved the club from going bust
That is a fact. No one wanted to buy the club other than that lad Morgan who ended up buying hull (I think. Could be wrong about who he bought). Fact is nobody wanted to buy us with our debt, never mind meet the asking price of the two gombeens.

Then there is investment. They gave Kenny our biggest ever transfer budget for it to be squandered. I agree our net spend hasn't been great but the evidence looks like klopp doesn't want to spend rather than FSG. We tried to break our transfer record 3 times in this window.

They invested in the stadium and surroundings. We talked about expanding 17 years ago and it was FSG who finally did it. That is two other owner ships that failed to deliver.

They said money was no object* but also said they want he club up be self sufficient. Using Boston as an example they allow their teams to generate their own funds to spend. They don't take above normal returns. Look at United and arsenal. Their board members take significant returns every year. I'm not saying our board are saints, I'm saying that we ain't exactly being used.

If you can give one undisputed example which is a fact, that FSG are bad for Liverpool, I'll take your argument seriously. But all I see so far is jealous fans who want FSG to spend heir own money on building a man city style empire. The fact is they don't have that kind of disposable income and recent history proves we could do a lot worse than owners who allow us to spend 40-70 million on 1 player.

I really don't accept that they "saved" the club from going bust.

The club was for sale and they bought it. Yes there was a court battle as H&G sought to hold on but in reality they got the club, one of the biggest brands in world football for £300m. That is a bargain.
If FSG or NESV didn't do it at the time there would definitely have been other buyers. More than Morgan, who bought Wolves in 2007 so was not bidding at all for Liverpool in 2010 as you believe.

As for the debt issue, again many people give them kudos for clearing Liverpool's debts. The debts were cleared with the purchase. It was not extra money that FSG had to pump into the club. Some people persist in thinking that they did.

They now have an asset worth over £1bn. That's a very healthy return on their "rescuing" purchase of £300m.

As for how they run they club, yes, they have increased commercial revenues which is good but has this lead to increased spending on the pitch?

They have built a stand, which don't forget brings extra revenue but after one season have they ploughed that money back into the club? Not so far.

As for things they have done bad, there are definitely some. The ticket prices protest springs to mind for one thing.

But the main thing for me was the summer that Suarez was sold. We lost a unique talent that was near impossible to replace but the club forced Brendan Rodgers to buy Ballotelli, a player that Rodgers said earlier that he did not want. Many would also argue that the Rodgers appointment was a poor and unambitious decision by FSG and looking his last two seasons with Liverpool it would be hard to argue with.

That summer showed a lack of ambition and interference by FSG with a transfer committee. Many stories of low balling that led to transfers being missed and the team being set back.

An example is Mohammed Salah. Rodgers wanted him but the club low-balled and stalled over a couple of million and he want to Chelsea and then we sign hi 3 years later for bigger money as Klopp wanted him.
They gambled that financial fair play would level the playing field but that has clearly backfired and they have also cashed in the best players at the time.

This summer looks poor as well. VVD debacle has to be an FSG issue as I can't imagine Klopp talking to the player unless he was told to do so and also the club was found guilty of tapping up a youth player and is serving a recruitment ban for that.
All well and good leaking info to the start of the season that there is £200m to spend, but so far we've only bought one expensive player. Whether that is entirely Klopp's decision remains to be seen. Hopefully it is as may believe here.

Of course, they are better owners than H&G and they now have the club on a secure financial footing. I don't think it's an amazing achievement though when you look at how badly run it was before, not availing fully of commercial opportunities, which they have improved but also they have had massive money handed to them with increased TV deals.
Commercially sound they maybe but I don't believe they are really running the club to be very successful on the field which is what it should be.

Also, fans of a club like Liverpool should not really just be happy with financial security whilst winning nothing and its rivals stretch further ahead.

54and56

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

OK i aggree with you there but we should not forget that FSG are financing other areas of the club with cheap loans to make it possible for Klopp to make those signings if he wishes.
This is something that a lot of fans here seem to forget and seem to think that as fans they can manage the club better. If that is the case why dont a few boards billionares step up, buy the club and pump their money in instead of complaining about the current owners.

Ricero Ricero, your club needs you. Your moment has arrived!!!

Muahahaha

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

Add to that that Klopp is Dembeles landlord in Dortmund and you might imagine that Klopp knows a lot more about what Barca are at in the background than you or I.

Klopp be telling Dembele that if he goes to Barca he is not getting his deposit on the gaff back

54and56

J Mysterio wrote: »

So Sakho acts a bit of a langer and is late for a meetup - banned for life.

One acting the b0ll1x, being disrespectful and disruptive just for a laugh.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Coutinho actually hands in a transfer request and asks to leave - all will be forgiven.

One is subject to a £100m transfer request from one of the top two teams in the world which every South American dreams of playing for where he can play with Messi and Suarez and pretty much guarantee to be winning or at least competing for leagues and CL's each year.

Same same but different as they say in Thailand

Irishmale0399

Muahahaha wrote: »

Klopp be telling Dembele that if he goes to Barca he is not getting his deposit on the gaff back

Or he might be telling him to get his arse back to Dortmund and clean up the mess himself and his mates left behind. Seems to have left the house in a state.......

machiavellianme

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Honestly coming up with a system that only requires one CB might be handy.

1-4-3-2 with
Double wing backs on both sides?

Harry Palmr

SuperTortoise wrote: »

Just voicing a thought on why Klopp has not identified any plan B.
Perhaps he sees himself as being the boss here for the next ten years and as such is happy to wait for the perfect player to join rather than settling for plan B?

He might not have 10 years, he might have two more if it goes tit's up. No manager can plan for a decade, even DoF's can't. Hell owners may not be able to.

dogbert27

murpho999 wrote: »

I really don't accept that they "saved" the club from going bust.

The club was for sale and they bought it. Yes there was a court battle as H&G sought to hold on but in reality they got the club, one of the biggest brands in world football for £300m. That is a bargain.
If FSG or NESV didn't do it at the time there would definitely have been other buyers. More than Morgan, who bought Wolves in 2007 so was not bidding at all for Liverpool in 2010 as you believe.

As for the debt issue, again many people give them kudos for clearing Liverpool's debts. The debts were cleared with the purchase. It was not extra money that FSG had to pump into the club. Some people persist in thinking that they did.

They now have an asset worth over £1bn. That's a very healthy return on their "rescuing" purchase of £300m.

As for how they run they club, yes, they have increased commercial revenues which is good but has this lead to increased spending on the pitch?

They have built a stand, which don't forget brings extra revenue but after one season have they ploughed that money back into the club? Not so far.

As for things they have done bad, there are definitely some. The ticket prices protest springs to mind for one thing.

But the main thing for me was the summer that Suarez was sold. We lost a unique talent that was near impossible to replace but the club forced Brendan Rodgers to buy Ballotelli, a player that Rodgers said earlier that he did not want. Many would also argue that the Rodgers appointment was a poor and unambitious decision by FSG and looking his last two seasons with Liverpool it would be hard to argue with.

That summer showed a lack of ambition and interference by FSG with a transfer committee. Many stories of low balling that led to transfers being missed and the team being set back.

An example is Mohammed Salah. Rodgers wanted him but the club low-balled and stalled over a couple of million and he want to Chelsea and then we sign hi 3 years later for bigger money as Klopp wanted him.
They gambled that financial fair play would level the playing field but that has clearly backfired and they have also cashed in the best players at the time.

This summer looks poor as well. VVD debacle has to be an FSG issue as I can't imagine Klopp talking to the player unless he was told to do so and also the club was found guilty of tapping up a youth player and is serving a recruitment ban for that.
All well and good leaking info to the start of the season that there is £200m to spend, but so far we've only bought one expensive player. Whether that is entirely Klopp's decision remains to be seen. Hopefully it is as may believe here.

Of course, they are better owners than H&G and they now have the club on a secure financial footing. I don't think it's an amazing achievement though when you look at how badly run it was before, not availing fully of commercial opportunities, which they have improved but also they have had massive money handed to them with increased TV deals.
Commercially sound they maybe but I don't believe they are really running the club to be very successful on the field which is what it should be.

Also, fans of a club like Liverpool should not really just be happy with financial security whilst winning nothing and its rivals stretch further ahead.

DAMN YOU FSG!!!!!

Mr.H

murpho999 wrote: »

I really don't accept that they "saved" the club from going bust.

They did. Its a fact not a suggestion. RBS gave Liverpool a deadline to find a buyer or they were foreclosing the loan which meant anything from administrators to people literally winding up the club as a whole.

I dont think you get how serious what they were saying was.

They (RBS) said the club wasnt stable financially and that because they were not being paid they were going to start looking for ways to make their money back.

murpho999 wrote: »

The club was for sale and they bought it. Yes there was a court battle as H&G sought to hold on but in reality they got the club, one of the biggest brands in world football for £300m. That is a bargain.
If FSG or NESV didn't do it at the time there would definitely have been other buyers. More than Morgan, who bought Wolves in 2007 so was not bidding at all for Liverpool in 2010 as you believe.

No! Nobody was in for Liverpool and it was the day before the deadline for finding a buyer that NESV (now FSG) actually followed through.

There was no other offer.

My talking about Steve Morgan was merely a suggestion he is the only real person who had previously showed interest in buying the club. The Thai lad was never really interested as been well documented.

FSG was it!

murpho999 wrote: »

As for the debt issue, again many people give them kudos for clearing Liverpool's debts. The debts were cleared with the purchase. It was not extra money that FSG had to pump into the club. Some people persist in thinking that they did.

They had no choice but to clear the debt as part of the deal to buy the club from RBS. Who again more a less repossessed Liverpool football club and would have dismantled the clubs assets if it found no buyer. It already stated that it was not interested in becoming an owner of a football club at the time.

murpho999 wrote: »

They now have an asset worth over £1bn. That's a very healthy return on their "rescuing" purchase of £300m.

An asset is only "worth" what a person is willing to pay. Financial estimations on "worth" is guesswork based on current market and potential opportunities.

H&G valued the club at 500 million. Didnt get it though............

As for the asset being worth £1Bn, its only worth that if they sold. Have they sold the Red Sox? Have they said Liverpool are for sale?

Again any evidence that they are seeking profit just let me know and I will listen without bias.

murpho999 wrote: »

As for how they run they club, yes, they have increased commercial revenues which is good but has this lead to increased spending on the pitch?

They have built a stand, which don't forget brings extra revenue but after one season have they ploughed that money back into the club? Not so far.

Yes they increased our income so they are running the club properly.

No they have not put the extra revenue from the additional seats into the club..........

Do you actually know how much extra they we get for attendance now?? We get approx 20% more money from attendances.

We dont have 55000 more people at each game. We have 8000 more people at each game. Average £40 a ticket is £320,000 or over £5million a season for PL games. Not exactly much to "pump back into the team". Although we did just sign our most expensive player in history.

murpho999 wrote: »

As for things they have done bad, there are definitely some. The ticket prices protest springs to mind for one thing.

Which they backed down on and ended up not only restructuring prices but offering even more £9 tickets than they initially planned.

murpho999 wrote: »

But the main thing for me was the summer that Suarez was sold. We lost a unique talent that was near impossible to replace but the club forced Brendan Rodgers to buy Ballotelli, a player that Rodgers said earlier that he did not want. Many would also argue that the Rodgers appointment was a poor and unambitious decision by FSG and looking his last two seasons with Liverpool it would be hard to argue with.

That summer showed a lack of ambition and interference by FSG with a transfer committee. Many stories of low balling that led to transfers being missed and the team being set back.

They forced Rodgers to sign Mario??? I dont think thats exactly true. They have never been directly involved in transfers.

The committee was set up yes but Rodgers agreed to it and it didnt work out.

The committee low balled transfers not FSG.

Of course if you have any links that prove otherwise again send them my way.

murpho999 wrote: »

An example is Mohammed Salah. Rodgers wanted him but the club low-balled and stalled over a couple of million and he want to Chelsea and then we sign hi 3 years later for bigger money as Klopp wanted him.
They gambled that financial fair play would level the playing field but that has clearly backfired and they have also cashed in the best players at the time.

Salah was coming from Basel at the time. Unproven, unknown and £11 million was still a big figure back then.

He didnt exactly succeed in England for Chelsea so who is to say we made the wrong decision at the time? Maybe he wasnt ready for the PL?

murpho999 wrote: »

This summer looks poor as well. VVD debacle has to be an FSG issue as I can't imagine Klopp talking to the player unless he was told to do so and also the club was found guilty of tapping up a youth player and is serving a recruitment ban for that.
All well and good leaking info to the start of the season that there is £200m to spend, but so far we've only bought one expensive player. Whether that is entirely Klopp's decision remains to be seen. Hopefully it is as may believe here.

Klopp was hanging out with VVD not FSG. I doubt JH txt Klopp and said get your ass down to Blackpool and buy VVD some candyfloss and show him the big wheel.

How are you even trying to blame FSG for Klopp being caught????

Im not saying Klopp didnt do anything other managers wouldnt do *ahem Jose and Cole

murpho999 wrote: »

Of course, they are better owners than H&G and they now have the club on a secure financial footing. I don't think it's an amazing achievement though when you look at how badly run it was before, not availing fully of commercial opportunities, which they have improved but also they have had massive money handed to them with increased TV deals.
Commercially sound they maybe but I don't believe they are really running the club to be very successful on the field which is what it should be.

Also, fans of a club like Liverpool should not really just be happy with financial security whilst winning nothing and its rivals stretch further ahead.

The fact is FSG done what noone else wanted to. They stopped Liverpool from going bust, put Liverpools financial future in a very healthy position, allowed the team to spend huge money and break the transfer record multiple times (and try to do it even more times).

I dont understand what more they can do to appease you? Do you want them to be buying the likes of Neymar and Messi? I dont understand? They personally cant afford that kind of spending that City, United and Chelsea have, but they are competing financially with teams like Spurs and Arsenal.

We are slowly building for the future and have a good management team and decent young squad.

Just tell me this. What do FSG have to do to make you believe they want to make Liverpool great??

54and56

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

A few things have to be brought into that statement....

Yes Couts pays him however...
1. Agents often see players as cash cows and earn money with every move
2. Agents are often close to family members and help them get jobs etc. to secure the client to the agency.
3. The family often then excert pressure on the player....earn more etc. and we can all live better.
4. Most players arent very clever...hence the reason they allow agents walk all over them. They seem to think without them their career will end.

Of course agents see players as cash cows. If a player incentivizes an agent in such a way that the agent will make more money by pushing for transfers what other outcome can the player expect?

Is point #2 relevant in this case? Are you aware of any of Coutinho's extended family getting jobs via Coutinho's agent?

Point 3 - same for pretty much all families the world over. Who doesn't tell their brother/son/cousin to make as much money as possible from their short professional football career? In fact, aren't agents specifically employed to maximise earnings for the player?

Point 4 - Massively patronising statement and even if it were true we're talking here exclusively about Coutinho and nothing I've ever seen from him via interviews or actions he has taken suggests he has below average intelligence.

Bottom line: None of your points excuse Coutinho from allowing himself to be forced to do something against his will. Saying he was "forced" to put in a transfer request and "forced" to go on strike is just a convenient bit of PR which sadly a lot of people will swallow because it's what they want to believe.

Coutinho wants to leave to join Barcelona which is understandable. He's pi$$ed off FSG won't sanction the sale so he's gone into a bit of a sulk which is also understandable, he's a young man. If FSG stick to their guns Coutinho will get over it and be welcomed back into the team. It's professional sport, no biggie.

That's all there is to it.

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

Commercially sound they maybe but I don't believe they are really running the club to be very successful on the field which is what it should be.

Apart from recruiting Klopp and his management team on 6 year contracts to run the football side of the club and giving them significant transfer funds to spend (which Klopp is refusing to spend) how exactly do you want FSG to get involved in the footballing side of the club?

No one seems to be willing to answer that question.

murpho999 wrote: »

Also, fans of a club like Liverpool should not really just be happy with financial security whilst winning nothing and its rivals stretch further ahead.

I'm not aware of a single fan who is happy with financial security instead of silverware. Speaking for myself I am happy the club is financially secure but unhappy that the high risk "Plan A or nothing" strategy Klopp seems to be adopting in relation to transfers is going to leave us short for the new season and instead of building on last year we'll end up standing still (as best) whilst our main rivals strengthen and improve.

If Klopp really is going all in on VVD and Kieta there's a chance they'll still happen at the last minute and if not there's a good chance (I hope) that Klopp does in fact have a a couple of Plan B transfers warmed up on the QT which he can switch if it becomes clear (to Klopp) VVD and Kieta definitely won't happen. That may be grasping as straws on my part, I hope not.

murpho999

Mr.H wrote: »

They did. Its a fact not a suggestion. RBS gave Liverpool a deadline to find a buyer or they were foreclosing the loan which meant anything from administrators to people literally winding up the club as a whole.

I dont think you get how serious what they were saying was.

They (RBS) said the club wasnt stable financially and that because they were not being paid they were going to start looking for ways to make their money back.



No! Nobody was in for Liverpool and it was the day before the deadline for finding a buyer that NESV (now FSG) actually followed through.

There was no other offer.


My talking about Steve Morgan was merely a suggestion he is the only real person who had previously showed interest in buying the club. The Thai lad was never really interested as been well documented.

FSG was it!

Not true at all. There were other bids. One from Peter Lim as shown in this article.
Even if that had not happened they best way for RBS to have got their money back was to sell the club. Somebody would have gotten it eventually.

They had no choice but to clear the debt as part of the deal to buy the club from RBS. Who again more a less repossessed Liverpool football club and would have dismantled the clubs assets if it found no buyer. It already stated that it was not interested in becoming an owner of a football club at the time.

As stated they got the club for £300m regardless of the debt level. A bargain price for one of the largest brands in World football.

An asset is only "worth" what a person is willing to pay. Financial estimations on "worth" is guesswork based on current market and potential opportunities.

H&G valued the club at 500 million. Didnt get it though............

As for the asset being worth £1Bn, its only worth that if they sold. Have they sold the Red Sox? Have they said Liverpool are for sale?

Liverpool were valued at £1bn last year when there were rumours of the club being sold. It's a fair assessment when you see that Southampton, a much smaller club are recently valued at £262m.

Again any evidence that they are seeking profit just let me know and I will listen without bias.

Selling best players and not reinvesting.
Original ticket price plan.

Yes they increased our income so they are running the club properly.

No they have not put the extra revenue from the additional seats into the club..........

Do you actually know how much extra they we get for attendance now?? We get approx 20% more money from attendances.

We dont have 55000 more people at each game. We have 8000 more people at each game. Average £40 a ticket is £320,000 or over £5million a season for PL games. Not exactly much to "pump back into the team". Although we did just sign our most expensive player in history.

Based on your figures it's £6m and also extra ancillaries, like coffee and donuts. The stand will pay for itself.

Which they backed down on and ended up not only restructuring prices but offering even more £9 tickets than they initially planned.

An embarrassing climb down that was a PR disaster and they had to back down as they'd made a mess of it and were trying to screw the fans for more cash. I don't see how this can be argued with.

They forced Rodgers to sign Mario??? I dont think thats exactly true. They have never been directly involved in transfers.

The committee was set up yes but Rodgers agreed to it and it didnt work out.

The committee low balled transfers not FSG.

Of course if you have any links that prove otherwise again send them my way.

Salah was coming from Basel at the time. Unproven, unknown and £11 million was still a big figure back then.

He didnt exactly succeed in England for Chelsea so who is to say we made the wrong decision at the time? Maybe he wasnt ready for the PL?

You are making excuses for them all the time. Rodgers did not want Ballotelli.
The committee was an FSG creation and was a disaster.
Gone when a stronger manager came in.

Salah is a good example, who joined a stronger Chelsea and did not get the chance he would have gotten at LFC. Missed out for the sake of a couple of million.

Klopp was hanging out with VVD not FSG. I doubt JH txt Klopp and said get your ass down to Blackpool and buy VVD some candyfloss and show him the big wheel.

How are you even trying to blame FSG for Klopp being caught????

Im not saying Klopp didnt do anything other managers wouldnt do *ahem Jose and Cole

Michael Edwards is supposed to do this so I would imagine that Klopp would only speak to the player after his clearance.

The fact is FSG done what noone else wanted to. They stopped Liverpool from going bust, put Liverpools financial future in a very healthy position, allowed the team to spend huge money and break the transfer record multiple times (and try to do it even more times).

I dont understand what more they can do to appease you? Do you want them to be buying the likes of Neymar and Messi? I dont understand? They personally cant afford that kind of spending that City, United and Chelsea have, but they are competing financially with teams like Spurs and Arsenal.

We are slowly building for the future and have a good management team and decent young squad.

Just tell me this. What do FSG have to do to make you believe they want to make Liverpool great??

Again you are promoting the myth that FSG are the only people who would have bought Liverpool at the time which I have shown not to be true.
Nor did they do it for sentimental or altruistic reasons. It was a cold blooded and completely sensible business decision that will pay them handsomely when they decide to sell up or start taking dividends from the club.

I also don't agree that the club does not have the money that City or Chelsea do. Why can't Liverpool but a £100m player this season with all the money that's around?

Why do people believe the club is poor when the opposite is true?
FSG have done an excellent job in convincing supporters that they cannot compete with other clubs and therefore lower expectations on the field.

You say they are building slowly, well it's very slow. 7 years now.

As for what they can do? State their ambitions and back the manager fully.

If they leak to the press that they will spend £200m in the next transfer window then spend it and identify other targets if first ones are unsuccessful, which is what other clubs do.
We are more like Arsenal.
To me it looks like the money was not really there in the first place.

Damien360

I wont quote your large post but who decides on valuations ?

LFC made a pre-tax loss of 19.8m for 2016. Valuations in most businesses are typically 7 times the outgoing profit. We are not making profit so how is it valued at 1bn ?

murpho999

Damien360 wrote: »

I wont quote your large post but who decides on valuations ?

LFC made a pre-tax loss of 19.8m for 2016. Valuations in most businesses are typically 7 times the outgoing profit. We are not making profit so how is it valued at 1bn ?

Don't worry about that loss that was down to transfer business and sacking Rodgers.
The next release will be a lot healthier.

As for the value. It was done by KPMG and is based on profitability, popularity, sporting potential, broadcasting rights and stadium ownership.

They value the club at €1.2bn-€1.4bn as shown here on their website.

Harry Palmr

murpho999 wrote: »

To me it looks like the money was not really there in the first place.

So the bids for Keita were a fiction? and VVD was entirely a ruse, a fake-news transfer story which was designed to be scuppered by an 'inept' e-mail? and Salah is an illusion?

murpho999

Harry Palmr wrote: »

So the bids for Keita were a fiction? and VVD was entirely a ruse, a fake-news transfer story which was designed to be scuppered by an 'inept' e-mail? and Salah is an illusion?

They have not get the deals over the line so bids mean nothing.

Salah is done, but is not a major deal when you see Everton spending £45m on Siggurddson.

When they sell players like Markvovic, Sakho, etc and take in how much extra money there is from TV this year then you'll see how little money they are spending.

BorneTobyWilde

PSG spending another 200m and losing a 50m pound player in deal, Lucas Moura. Mbappe is close to completion.

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

Not true at all. There were other bids. One from Peter Lim as shown in this article.
Even if that had not happened they best way for RBS to have got their money back was to sell the club. Somebody would have gotten it eventually.




As stated they got the club for £300m regardless of the debt level. A bargain price for one of the largest brands in World football.



Liverpool were valued at £1bn last year when there were rumours of the club being sold. It's a fair assessment when you see that Southampton, a much smaller club are recently valued at £262m.



Selling best players and not reinvesting.
Original ticket price plan.



Based on your figures it's £6m and also extra ancillaries, like coffee and donuts. The stand will pay for itself.




An embarrassing climb down that was a PR disaster and they had to back down as they'd made a mess of it and were trying to screw the fans for more cash. I don't see how this can be argued with.




You are making excuses for them all the time. Rodgers did not want Ballotelli.
The committee was an FSG creation and was a disaster.
Gone when a stronger manager came in.

Salah is a good example, who joined a stronger Chelsea and did not get the chance he would have gotten at LFC. Missed out for the sake of a couple of million.




Michael Edwards is supposed to do this so I would imagine that Klopp would only speak to the player after his clearance.




Again you are promoting the myth that FSG are the only people who would have bought Liverpool at the time which I have shown not to be true.
Nor did they do it for sentimental or altruistic reasons. It was a cold blooded and completely sensible business decision that will pay them handsomely when they decide to sell up or start taking dividends from the club.

I also don't agree that the club does not have the money that City or Chelsea do. Why can't Liverpool but a £100m player this season with all the money that's around?

Why do people believe the club is poor when the opposite is true?
FSG have done an excellent job in convincing supporters that they cannot compete with other clubs and therefore lower expectations on the field.

You say they are building slowly, well it's very slow. 7 years now.

As for what they can do? State their ambitions and back the manager fully.

If they leak to the press that they will spend £200m in the next transfer window then spend it and identify other targets if first ones are unsuccessful, which is what other clubs do.
We are more like Arsenal.
To me it looks like the money was not really there in the first place.

The fiction thread is that way ->

Harry Palmr

murpho999 wrote: »

They have not get the deals over the line so bids mean nothing.

Salah is done, but is not a major deal when you see Everton spending £45m on Siggurddson.

When they sell players like Markvovic, Sakho, etc and take in how much extra money there is from TV this year then you'll see how little money they are spending.

This is just juvenile stuff from you.

A when a record bid for a BL player is made it's designed to be taken seriously and therefore possibly/hopefully accepted. Or were you expecting FSG to suddenly pull out on spurious grounds

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

The fiction thread is that way ->

I don't see how it's fiction when I provide evidence.

Anyhow I'm clearly in the minority here but I just don't believe we have 'winning' owners.

Good owners yes, but not winners and that's what matters to me.

dogbert27

What have they done in 7 years:

2 League Cup Finals
2 League Cup semi-finals
1 FA Cup Final
1 FA Cup semi-final
1 Europa League Cup Final
2nd place finish in the league
4th place finish in the league

We are in a league with 3 of the richest clubs in the world. They have 3 of the most successful managers in the world, Pep Guardiola, Jose Mourinho and Antonio Conte.

But yeah, it's FSG's fault that we have no ambition.

dogbert27

murpho999 wrote: »

They have not get the deals over the line so bids mean nothing.

So you're saying that the money was actually there, it's just the deals didn't get over the line?

murpho999

Harry Palmr wrote: »

This is just juvenile stuff from you.

A when a record bid for a BL player is made it's designed to be taken seriously and therefore possibly/hopefully accepted. Or were you expecting FSG to suddenly pull out on spurious grounds

But it didn't happen so they haven't spent the money.

Did you believe we would spend £200m at the start of the window as was being reported?

54and56

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't see how it's fiction when I provide evidence.

You know there's a difference between your opinion and what you "imagine" (that's a direct quote from your post BTW ) and actual facts don't you?

murpho999 wrote: »

Anyhow I'm clearly in the minority here but I just don't believe we have 'winning' owners.

Good owners yes, but not winners and that's what matters to me.

Fans of The Red Sox would disagree with you.

murpho999

dogbert27 wrote: »

What have they done in 7 years:

2 League Cup Finals
2 League Cup semi-finals
1 FA Cup Final
1 FA Cup semi-final
1 Europa League Cup Final
2nd place finish in the league
4th place finish in the league

We are in a league with 3 of the richest clubs in the world. They have 3 of the most successful managers in the world, Pep Guardiola, Jose Mourinho and Antonio Conte.

But yeah, it's FSG's fault that we have no ambition.

All you have done above is listed failures apart from one league cup.

Bob Paisley regarding a season as a disaster if they finisihed second in the league.:)

murpho999

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You know there's a difference between your opinion and what you "imagine" (that's a direct quote from your post BTW ) and actual facts don't you?

Stuff like how there were more bidders than FSG is fact so why not pull up Mr H for his non-facts.
I only "imagined" about Michael Edwards so I don't know what you're getting at.

Fans of The Red Sox would disagree with you.

Don't care, has no impact on LFC.