Convo from a supporter's group (on a another platform)

[vin]

I'm not anti-FSG (yet) but there's not much wrong with what this OP states. Not sure about the net spend of 24m but the rest stacks up. Surprised at the response. Names have been removed. Seems like FSG have a fair amount of support.
-----------
Hope to clear some things up:

1. FSG did NOT save the club. They saw a business opportunity to make money. Simple as that.

2. Fans who would like LFC to compete in the market aren’t plastic, or fifa players. They are ambitious, nothing wrong with that.

3. FSG built a main stand yes but this does not make them exempt from being competitive in the transfer market. The purpose of the main stand was to increase value of their asset when it comes to sell and evidently make them more money. More tickets = more money.

4. Fans are not asking LFC to spend City or PSG money. We are simply asking for more than an average net-spend of 24m a season considering what the club makes and we have arguably the best manager we’ll ever get for the next decade. He deserves to be backed.
#fsgout


Response 1
21h
So..how much money are you giving to Liverpool so that they can spend money.
They can only spend what they receive.. they aren't countries who can print money endlessly.
So.. show me your money ?

Response 2
How much extra are you happy to pay for tickets or to watch, or do you just expect others to shell out?


Response 3

LFC was 11 hours away from bankruptcy. Don't care what you call it, FSG saved LFC that day.
Fans that bang on about investment aren't plastic, just ungrateful.


Response 4

To an extent I agree but if they were not a business opportunity and run as a business then there may not be a club. I do think they would be well advised to spend more on good young players to replace our ageing side.


Response 4

1. They did. The evidence is plain to see. Totally agree that there was a business motivation driving the decision, but other than an oligarch's plaything or a sovereign state's vanity project, the purchase of every big club is a business transaction.

2. We agree, we do want to compete, but not at the expense of the soul of the club. Let's be honest, we have been competing pretty well these last few years. Any club, even City would be struggling given the number of injuries we've suffered. Would I like to see us go and get Bellingham and Rice in January? Of course, maybe that is going on in the background, we'll have to wait and see.

3. So, by very definition, invested in the club. You also seem to bypass the significant investment in training facilities. That doesn't generate any matchday revenue, but it was a way of improving the club. In business, investing large sums is always a risk, but they do it and subsequently reaped the rewards.

4. "fans" literally are asking for PSG/City money. We should spend £100m on Rice, £150m on Bellingham, £200m on Mbappe! The club has a lot of debt in the form of amortisation and until this drops, we can't go out and buy lots of big names (not to mention wages). Who brought Klopp in?

[justme]

Some good points, I think I agree with this most of all

4. Fans are not asking LFC to spend City or PSG money. We are simply asking for more than an average net-spend of 24m a season considering what the club makes and we have arguably the best manager we’ll ever get for the next decade. He deserves to be backed.
#fsgout<--- but not that part

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem I have with how the club is run, Is that the facts Jurgen and the people involved in purchasing players. Are simply not allowed to make 1 single error by buying a flop.
We are stuck with the likes of Oxlade and Keita. Because the owners are not willing to lose a few million by cancelling their contracts or letting them go on a cheaper deal
So Klopp has to accept that hes stuck with injured players. Like the person says in his post. This isn't about paying out 100s of millions, just enough quality in the squad to overcome injuries and tired players.

[redebreck]

"any club, even City would be struggling given the number of injuries we've suffered"

Disagree - this person doesn't have a clue about the investment that's been made elsewhere.
Jizzfest in particular.

[Steveo]

Totally agree with your disagreement Red but from a different angle. And Jizfest would be far better able to cope in our circumstance - yet they don't seem to suffer this fate. Almost no other so called elite club seems to, in actual fact. Certainly not on the scale we do or with the regularity.


Why are we for the second time in 3 seasons on the wrong end of cyclic injury crisis?

I would say - it is precisely because our owners have failed to invest at anything like the required level! Boom and bust, with Klopp the miracle worker in chief

[Taksin]

, with Klopp the miracle worker in chief

Although he couldn’t work the miracle of beating Forest. Sometimes the gulf in class is just too great for even his magical powers

[Steveo]

[CCTV]

I'm not anti-FSG (yet) but there's not much wrong with what this OP states. Not sure about the net spend of 24m but the rest stacks up. Surprised at the response. Names have been removed. Seems like FSG have a fair amount of support.
-----------
Hope to clear some things up:

1. FSG did NOT save the club. They saw a business opportunity to make money. Simple as that.

2. Fans who would like LFC to compete in the market aren’t plastic, or fifa players. They are ambitious, nothing wrong with that.

3. FSG built a main stand yes but this does not make them exempt from being competitive in the transfer market. The purpose of the main stand was to increase value of their asset when it comes to sell and evidently make them more money. More tickets = more money.

4. Fans are not asking LFC to spend City or PSG money. We are simply asking for more than an average net-spend of 24m a season considering what the club makes and we have arguably the best manager we’ll ever get for the next decade. He deserves to be backed.
#fsgout


Response 1
21h
So..how much money are you giving to Liverpool so that they can spend money.
They can only spend what they receive.. they aren't countries who can print money endlessly.
So.. show me your money ?

Response 2
How much extra are you happy to pay for tickets or to watch, or do you just expect others to shell out?


Response 3

LFC was 11 hours away from bankruptcy. Don't care what you call it, FSG saved LFC that day.
Fans that bang on about investment aren't plastic, just ungrateful.


Response 4

To an extent I agree but if they were not a business opportunity and run as a business then there may not be a club. I do think they would be well advised to spend more on good young players to replace our ageing side.


Response 4

1. They did. The evidence is plain to see. Totally agree that there was a business motivation driving the decision, but other than an oligarch's plaything or a sovereign state's vanity project, the purchase of every big club is a business transaction.

2. We agree, we do want to compete, but not at the expense of the soul of the club. Let's be honest, we have been competing pretty well these last few years. Any club, even City would be struggling given the number of injuries we've suffered. Would I like to see us go and get Bellingham and Rice in January? Of course, maybe that is going on in the background, we'll have to wait and see.

3. So, by very definition, invested in the club. You also seem to bypass the significant investment in training facilities. That doesn't generate any matchday revenue, but it was a way of improving the club. In business, investing large sums is always a risk, but they do it and subsequently reaped the rewards.

4. "fans" literally are asking for PSG/City money. We should spend £100m on Rice, £150m on Bellingham, £200m on Mbappe! The club has a lot of debt in the form of amortisation and until this drops, we can't go out and buy lots of big names (not to mention wages). Who brought Klopp in?

I think it's reasonable to suggest they're good owners. The new infrastructure seemed badly needed.

In terms on net spend, ours has declined relatively since Klopp arrived but still way above his neutral net spend at Dortmund.

Under Klopp Chelsea and spurs have a net spend not too much greater than ours, but its still a little less than double ours.

Certainly can point to a few points where this extra spending was needed.
For me the not replacing Lovren wasn't too bad, calculated gamble that didn't work out.
This last summer though we needed to add more than we did. Big fail.

The argument about spending a little more, is blindsided somewhat by the potential to get increased revenue.
Granted Klopps continued top4 finishes and CL runs have been pretty great.
But the difference between winning the 2 major titles and not, can't be underestimated.

Our 2 CL finals, Salah injured by Ramos no real back up option. Would have been nice to have couts for that game alone.
This last final, we had 2 fatigued and returning from injury starters in our midfield and little else on the bench.

For me Klopp should take a fair share for his setup v city at the etihad and v real in the final last year.
Still iis job would be easier with a few better options.

As justme said, a big failure of ours is the failure to move lads on and get fees in.
That's probably a bit down to the market itself, but it's been costly.
Ox and Keita each cost us about the same as Mane in fees and wages. Even Origi who I love should have been shipped on.

Perhaps the club is happy to lose assets on free contracts, there is some benefit in doing so as you can write them off for their value under ffp regulations.
But this only makes sense when you have owners who want to put money into transfers.
Like at PSG losing Mbappe on a free, can be written off at a greater amount than say the fee Real offered them. Of course this comes at the cost of losing the fee, but if you want to be able to invest more on transfers its a good strategy.
I don't get the feeling our owners are operating in this manner as we have lots of leeway under ffp

[justme]

You can't compare the net spend in Germany CCTV. and that was 8 years ago things have changed
In Germany the prices of players (apart from the very top players) is pretty low

[CCTV]

You can't compare the net spend in Germany CCTV. and that was 8 years ago things have changed
In Germany the prices of players (apart from the very top players) is pretty low

Just pointing out Klopp had a very low, neutral net spend in Germany. Then he joined LFC and our net spend reduced conapted with the Kenny/BR era.

[Taksin]

If net spend is above zero, it means the club is spending on transfer fees what it could be spending on wages. Unless dividends are being taken. In our case, they aren't.

Don't understand why people still can't understand this simple fact.