European Superleague teams to be announced today

[Steveo]

Posting a video is nowhere near enough.
I think John Henry needs to come here in person and somehow address the fans in public to explain himself, his reasoning and his future plans.

Yes that would be something - but I won't be holding my breath.

[Taksin]

You know I could agree with some of this IF the same increases in club values had not materialised for all Premier league clubs

But they haven't. In the chart you supply, the accuracy of which is hard to be certain of, there are different increases in value for different teams during that time frame.

For LFC it is an increase of 559 %
For Manchester United it is 220 %
For Chelsea it is 334 %

That proves my point. These increases in value do not reflect merely the inflation of the market as a whole because they differ. One difference is the way the clubs have been run and the type of investment they have received.

I notice you start blathering on again about how these changes are in fact due to the managerial changes but that is a different question. I was showing that there was a way to prove you were wrong when you said this;

The cash cow is buying a club at less than half price "a steal" for £300 million - making it run itself and then owning an asset worth nigh on £2 Billion. This is like real estate investment

If that were true, the clubs would increase their value in an even manner. But you have proved that they don't, which means you have proved yourself wrong.

You're all over the place again, Steveo. No wonder we get nowhere.

[Taksin]

The Boston Brigade... that's the moniker for you CC and a few others.


Uncle John - dearest uncle John - we love you uncle John.. we pledge allegiance to your John'ness and will never back down no matter how much you try and try to turn us into an American franchise.

Where as you are calling in the Arabs. Please, big handsome oil barons, come and take over our club. Give us the net spend we all go to bed at night dreaming of..

This type of discourse would be pathetic for a teenager, Steveo

[jozza800]

The wealth divide has never been as wide as it is today but don't let that get in the way of you publishing knowledge gleaned from a life under a rock.

I guess we can agree - you would be an expert on how "shit actually works"..

Did I read somewhere that 1% of the world's population hold 99% of the worlds wealth! Insane.

[Taksin]

No a parasite obviously causes some damage in most cases but you said its agenda is to destroy - if that were the case it would destroy its source of survival.


Back to school

That's not true. I didn't say its agenda was to destroy, I said that it does destroy while pursuing its own agenda. A subtle difference your arrogance has caused you to miss.

Perhaps you'd like to name a parasite that does not damage its host? Maybe you think it's a good thing to have parasites in your body?

Take a look at;
the Cordyceps fungus that sucks the caterpillar dry of all its juice and life so it can grow and spawn itself
Toxoplasmosis, which causes mice to be eaten by cats to spread itself
or barnacles that attach to sea turtles so they can spread their seed more widely, overwhelming the turtle's immune system in the process, bringing a premature death

from google

A parasitic relationship is one in which one organism, the parasite, lives off of another organism, the host, harming it and possibly causing death. The parasite lives on or in the body of the host. A few examples of parasites are tapeworms, fleas, and barnacles.

[scientificred]

Yes that would be something - but I won't be holding my breath.

Come here John and face up. Show us your sorrow and humility and announce your aspirations for us and the English game! Nothing else will do!
Otherwise it is best you leave!

[Steveo]

But they haven't. In the chart you supply, the accuracy of which is hard to be certain of, there are different increases in value for different teams during that time frame.

For LFC it is an increase of 559 %
For Manchester United it is 220 %
For Chelsea it is 334 %

That proves my point. These increases in value do not reflect merely the inflation of the market as a whole because they differ. One difference is the way the clubs have been run and the type of investment they have received.

I notice you start blathering on again about how these changes are in fact due to the managerial changes but that is a different question. I was showing that there was a way to prove you were wrong when you said this;

The cash cow is buying a club at less than half price "a steal" for £300 million - making it run itself and then owning an asset worth nigh on £2 Billion. This is like real estate investment

If that were true, the clubs would increase their value in an even manner. But you have proved that they don't, which means you have proved yourself wrong.

You're all over the place again, Steveo. No wonder we get nowhere.

Wobble wobble Taksin. It proves that you are simply incapable of accepting reality.


Spurs - the team you have cleverly omitted have increased in value over 6 times! a greater increase than ours - for those who can count yet they haven't even won a bean.

We can all see how City did it - except maybe you but the fact is owners are not the driving force behind the increase in Value. TV revenues are.

Kerching..

But keep trying mr Taksin

[Taksin]

If you want more evidence of how key the manager is look at Arsenal since sacking Wenger - dropping value big time now from a very healthy $1 Billion in 2018 to less than $800 million in 2020.

I've already stated there are many, complex reasons for success and failure. You are the one who wants to point to 'net spend' as the defining measure of success. That argument immediately falls down when we examine Arsenal, ironically.

Where we differ is you are confused about your own position.

When its good, it's Klopp
When it's bad, it's underinvestment

When it's good, you aren't able to say it's Klopp plus investment.

Being interested in complexity, I don't limit the concept of investment to financial investment (never mind the difference between net spend and the wage bill, for example). My position is actually fairly modest - the recent success we have enjoyed must, in part, be the result of good stewardship.

I do go one step further and say that I believe the health of the owners is the most important guarantee of the health of the club, but that is an opinion that is hard to prove, although it would make for interesting conversation. That conversation is impossible to have with someone hell bent on characterising the custodians of our club, which has just enjoyed its first taste of dominance in 30 years, as parasites.

[Taksin]

Wobble wobble Taksin. It proves that you are simply incapable of accepting reality.


Spurs - the team you have cleverly omitted have increased in value over 6 times! a greater increase than ours - for those who can count yet they haven't even won a bean.

We can all see how City did it - except maybe you but the fact is owners are not the driving force behind the increase in Value. TV revenues are.

Kerching..

But keep trying mr Taksin

No. Again you don't understand the argument.

Their increases in value are variable for varying reasons.

Their increases are not merely the product of market inflation - like real estate.

Your argument is wrong. I wasn't disputing an argument about who is the best or who is more valuable, I was disputing the idea that FSG have increased the value of the club in the way that any other owner would.

Try to have some discipline, Steveo..

[Steveo]

I've already stated there are many, complex reasons for success and failure. You are the one who wants to point to 'net spend' as the defining measure of success. That argument immediately falls down when we examine Arsenal, ironically.

Where we differ is you are confused about your own position.

When its good, it's Klopp
When it's bad, it's underinvestment

When it's good, you aren't able to say it's Klopp plus investment.

Being interested in complexity, I don't limit the concept of investment to financial investment (never mind the difference between net spend and the wage bill, for example). My position is actually fairly modest - the recent success we have enjoyed must, in part, be the result of good stewardship.

I do go one step further and say that I believe the health of the owners is the most important guarantee of the health of the club, but that is an opinion that is hard to prove, although it would make for interesting conversation. That conversation is impossible to have with someone hell bent on characterising the custodians of our club, which has just enjoyed its first taste of dominance in 30 years, as parasites.

Again the fantasy world of Taksin. The medicine man who doesn't understand the function of a parasite. A prime example of how poor education standards are these days.

Taksin who doesn't follow the forum or he would see the many instances where I have stated Klopps mistakes. In his dealings with the media - on his team selections and on his choice of player.

Taksin - who clearly can't comprehend the difference between an investment for a profit and the draining of resources .


What can't speak can't lie. You wanted to credit the owners for the huge increase in value and I showed you how it is not all down to them..

Still not enough. Still the desperate attempts to prove that you are far smarter than you actually are.

Why not provide some evidence of your theories on the complex reasons for success and failure...? I could use a laugh.