Liverpool FC Team Talk, Gossip, Rumours 2024/25

Naby I’d training again and could be fit for the Southampton game.

I'd fully expect him to leave. Would probably finish the season and then resign.

Do you ever hear him talk on societal issues? The man is a socialist he wouldn't work for a sheikh.

He's a rich man and probably the top coach in the world he can get a job anywhere.

You never know though. Maybe PL clubs are being undervalued now, given their standing in the game and the amount of money they earn through TV deals and other media.

Maybe the Super League pops up again under a view guise and Liverpool's media earning capacity is doubled. Or clubs are allowed to sell their own match rights also and there's another big increase. There is potential for club value to increase.

Football is an incredibly popular sport, and it's growing in the US. In comparison to NFL teams, PL clubs are 'cheap'.

That ship has sailed I'm afraid. Was an option when the club was on its knees at the end of the H&G disaster but despite a couple of efforts to get enough fans to sign up to be shareholders in a transition to fan ownership they couldn't get the numbers. IIRC the ask back then was £5,000 a head from 100,000 fans in order to raise £500m but it didn't fly.

If the rumoured price tag of $5 billion is true that would equate to £4.3 billion in Sterling and thus to £43,000 a head if there was another attempt to get 100,000 fans to pony up.

I personally was in a position (and did) sign up to the previous attempt at fan ownership but there's no chance I'd sign up for £43,000.

Also, just on the Middle East sportwashing thing.

What's to actually gain from buying Liverpool? What's the attraction and 'big win'? Liverpool are an already established worldwide brand with a massive supporter base. One of the biggest clubs in the world.

When other clubs such as Chelsea, Man City, Newcastle were bought, for cheap (in relative terms), there was a big upside to buying those clubs. The clubs were starved of success, a fan base who craved success and would give anything for league titles. There was nothing to lose when buying these clubs. They were starting at a low base and had a easy route to the top. Bringing those clubs to the top would instantly buy them an "army of fans" as Rory Smith said about Abramovich buying Chelsea. Chelsea fans supported him and totally ignored any of his previous misgivings, or links to Putin. Some still do. Because he brought them success. But for him, there was a big win. A club in London. He became 'westernised', a nice public image in the UK as just a 'footballer lover happy to have success' and was able to gain a strong foothold with the UK property market. Just look at Newcastle & the Saudis now.

Whenever Chelsea's success is talked about, Abramovich is very quickly mentioned as the driving force. Likewise at Man City, Abu Dhabi are always quickly mentioned and the big win there is that they are the reason why there is big success. This won't happen at Liverpool as they are an already established club, with a deep history of winning trophies in the short and long term. The new owners won't be the defining factor in any potential future success. They can't rename the stadium as somewhere like Anfield will always be called Anfield no matter what happens. There isn't really a big win for the owners. There will be more scrutiny on these owners if they bought Liverpool than at Man City, Newcastle, PSG etc. Simply because there is a much larger starting base and attention. There is a large risk associated with such a high purchase price.

What if the oil state was Norway would it feel different than an Middle East state ,

Its interesting concept of where as humans we draw the line & who is bad & who is good , i suppose it depends on where you have been brought up & what cultural you are,

I'm not for one minute suggestion all States are equal obviously some have horrendous humans rights history's

What if states from the East getting into football somehow helped reduce there human rights issues , could it somehow bring them in line with Western thinking ? Iv no idea myself, its such a complicated subject ,

Like yourself iv no idea how i will feel if we are owned by a State with such issues,

Can we love the club & dislike the owners can they be separated ,

Stephen Paglicua has been mentioned

Co owner of Boston Celtics & majority owner of Atlanta,

His company Bain Capital has assets valued at 112bn more than Sheikh Mansour

If we're to stick with the Americans then Nike Co-Founder Phil Knight could be an option if I can speculate wildly for a minute:

$37bn net worth, previous investments in sports teams (currently rumoured to be interested in buying the Portland Trail Blazers too), Liverpool are one of Nike's biggest current clients, we're part owned by Nike's biggest star LeBron James.

Ah that's sickening to hear, I'm genuinely devastated for him, and his entire nation as well.

I suppose at least he got the chance to play at a World Cup already, but as champions of Africa I'm sure Senegal had aspirations of a run to the quarter finals this time around.

Honestly **** this ridiculous world cup

Yeah but this is the level that most billionaires are at unfortunately, it's my belief that every single billionaire is morally repugnant, they're all going to do everything in their power to protect their assets at all costs. I'm sure John Henry has voted and funded many a Republican campaign. (Let's not forget our Brazilian players are all huge Bolsonaro supporters)

It's a desperate state of affairs but it really is a case of just trying to get the "least bad" person. "Doesn't kill dissidents" should be a much lower bar to cross than it's turning out to be.

Who cares what there political views in the states are both sides have the issues,

Henry was a big Hillary Clinton supporter & she's a loon & John Egan a Director backed Trump

IF we are honest the middle eastern countries that get the bad rap but that is because of there humans rights violations & there practises do not align with ours in the West,

Canada, Norway , even the US there oil money is never tarnished with the same brush ,

I'm not saying its wrong or right but just that is how it is for us,

That's a decent objective way of saying it. Like, removing the emotive parts, what would pull me away from the club in the event of being owned by a group like that, is that it would be used for purposes that are directly opposed to my own personal values, which leads to it becoming too much of an emotional conflict. In the same way I have zero excitement about this world cup, but instead just feel a bit uncomfortable/sick thinking about it.

For me it's definitely a lot less about oil specifically - that's primarily just a common denominator that makes it easier to describe a whole bunch of buyers (oil state), but its the state's social behaviour (homophobic, misogyny, murder, genocide, intentional blocking of aid to refugees to starve kids etc) that makes it too hard a circle to square.

I don't even think for a lot of fans who feel similarly that it's an act of moral grandstanding or something, but rather something simply changing in the relationship between club and fan that makes it untenable. Like, say you love someone, together for years, and they cheat on you. Regardless of great past history, that relationship has now changed, and the feeling of it has changed, and for a lot of people is too much to go back to. So I think for a lot of fans, being bought by an entity that fundamentally changes the way you viscerally feel about the club, would just 'break the fandom magic' so to speak.

I wonder will we see a real lack on intensity from world cup bound players this week ,

Seem to be falling like flies no doubt lads will be itching to just get on the plane & out there now at this stage

It'll be interesting to see if all ours start on Saturday

I don't think the problem is being owned by an oil baron as much as it is being owned by a nation state and the reasons why a state would want to own a football club.