Pick your owners

[Insidious]

Yea. It always felt that ill-informed fans were looking at the wrong people to apportion blame. Constant moaning about FSG not supporting Klopp enough. The reality is the only thing that stopped Klopp from winning more titles was City cheating.

Think there's a fair amount of funding (something like £63m per year) of salaries that Man City pay that gets declared by some (UEFA) but not others (EPL) perhaps due to UEFA including the portion of the salaries that run through City Groups.

More accurate reflection of the operational costs and should impact calculations on PSR - yet we are often told that Liverpool have the highest wage bill....

Anyway - couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. Any time I think of comparing our clubs to cyclists, I essentially hear "LFC would have won more if we had provided an extra water bottle with electrolytes" while Man City continues to juice up.

They've massively impacted the game via cheating and as well as the selfish problem with it we have (being denied titles) there's all the sides that missed out on Europe by one spot in the League, or missed out on remaining in the Division by one spot - a spot taken up by a club that shouldn't be in the League as far as I'm concerned.

[CCTV]

Can't underestimate the G.Nev take on spending influence. Braindead.

Emery Villa 22/23 to 23/34
€125.09 mill net spent & 151 cent gained per euro.

Rodgers 12/13 to Post-Summer of 15/16
€173.86 mill net spent & 2.4 cent gained per euro.

Thats some analysis I provided. Those were the extreme ends, including others.

To put it in a simple context, to add €100 million net in players from net spending, you'd need to give:

Emery €66.2 Million
&
Rodgers €4.167 Billion

*based on the data above

From Transfermarkt & CCTV

https://forums.lfconline.co.uk/showthread.php?311530-Transfer-spening-and-footy-finances&p=2886386#post2886386

To fill it out a bit more..

Klopp 16/17 to 19/20
€93.35 mill net & 87.4 cent gained per euro.

Slot 24/25 to 25/26
€258.4 mill net & 82.8 cent gained per euro.

Klopp 20/21 to 23/24
€303.85 mill net & 59 cent gained per euro.

Areta 20/21 to 23/24
€531.35 mill net & 54 cent gained per euro.

Same as above, to add €100 mill net in players..

Klopp 16/17 to 19/20
€114.4 million

Slot 24/25 to 25/26
€120.8 million

Klopp 20/21 to 23/24
€169.5 million

Areta 20/21 to 23/24
€185.2 million

Not a great reflection on BillionR !!

[Kev0909]

Not really arsed about anyone else, just feel like they could do more, maybe last summer was a start, but maybe if they spent a bit more before that we wouldn't have been in the situation we found ourself in this season.

and we're still short on numbers- and this has been the case for a while in certain areas, under Klopp too.

that's just my arguement other teams don't have the same problems, and that's why they're above us.

For what it's worth think everton have done pretty well just because of the new stadium, not doing bad at all considering,size/wealth, a new complete stadium nothing to laugh about, fair play, think it's done a lot of good for the city and the surrounding area too.

Don't think a mourinho type manager would win anything under FSG, which is why Klopp gets loads of credit, not just the first league title in so long but not exactly splashed out like others, and our squad lacked compared to others imo, very very good signings with Coutinho mane salah etc... that was the difference, and Klopp.

[JockStrap]

A US billionaire taking over a Premier League team with the following vision

The Friedkin Group has outlined a vision for a "sustainable and successful" future

How is that any different from FSG?

I just found out they've owned Roma too since 2020.

[Kev0909]

Difference is we're one the biggest clubs in the world

Been hearing people bang on about record revenues over recent history- where was the money when we needed X Y Z over the years? arsenal sort it, even utd sort it to a degree now at least, city obviously, look at january.

£800million that stadium ok yes, I know it's not like the owners have splashed out 800m but still, commitment and investing

we had to sign Kabak on loan....

not saying they're terrible owners, but lets not forget we're one of the biggest teams in the world.... left very short at times, when we was begging for additions- compare that to other top clubs....

we should, and could've won more over the last 6-8 years or so, but in my eyes anyway lack of investment in areas we really needed additions or to improve on when we had one of the best forward lines in the world, a little wasted I think.

Look at the washed midfield we had, no additions... we acted eventually but we wasted a season because we was too late, again, we don't do things forward thinking or one step forward in my opinion, but i've stated my views about it all, not going to post the same 100 times like a certain other person.

[JockStrap]

Maybe if we'd spent the £60m on Nunez better? Money was available and was spent.

[Insidious]

we had to sign Kabak on loan....

Sort of made sense at the time, given our model.

Think it was a £1m loan fee with option of buying for £18m if he'd worked out, which was relatively low risk and non-commital if we decided not to buy him in the Summer and go for someone else.

A lot of fans were clamouring for a permanent January transfer (very understandable - "Guehi before Guehi" if you will...) but if we'd acquired one we probably never end up getting Konaté that Summer - so I tend to take a fairly relaxed (and admittedly probably unpopular) stance on that whole debacle.

[Kev0909]

Sort of made sense at the time, given our model.

Think it was a £1m loan fee with option of buying for £18m if he'd worked out, which was relatively low risk and non-commital if we decided not to buy him in the Summer and go for someone else.

A lot of fans were clamouring for a permanent January transfer (very understandable - "Guehi before Guehi" if you will...) but if we'd acquired one we probably never end up getting Konaté that Summer - so I tend to take a fairly relaxed (and admittedly probably unpopular) stance on that whole debacle.

Not to forget davies

What's our model? be that desperate? and not actually invest in areas we need and leave it for far too long?

It's obvious to everyone that has happened quite a few times with FSG surely? compare it other teams around us, that's just my point.

They're not bad but far from perfect, need to spend a bit of money on a consistent basis to compete with arsenal city and utd /chelsea that's just how it is, unless we find gems like Coutinho salah/mane again on a cheap- but that doesn't happen every week.

we could've done that with Rayan because I think he'll turn out to be a top player, but we didn't and I doubt he'll be at bournemouth for more than a few seasons, and then they'll make a tidy profit.

[JockStrap]

Here you are Steveo. This is the thread to post your alternatives to FSG.

You're all over the other threads yapping like a little chihuahua about FSG. Tell us which owners you would prefer.

[Insidious]

Not to forget davies

What's our model? be that desperate? and not actually invest in areas we need and leave it for far too long?

It's obvious to everyone that has happened quite a few times with FSG surely? compare it other teams around us, that's just my point.

Not to forget Davies - true.

But again, if we buy a centre-back that January, we probably don't get Konaté in the following Summer.

We end up entering the following Summer (when Konaté arrives, I might forget someone here) with the following lads -

Van Dijk
Konaté
Matip
Gomez
Phillips
Van den Berg
Williams
Davies
Koumetio
Quansah

We are careful at times not to block the paths of youngsters, as they're part of how we do our spending. We've seen considerable money come in from selling the likes of Quansah and Van den Berg (£60m for both I think) which is part of how we do things. I don't know if it would have made that much sense to have brought another lad in, in terms of blocking youth development or in terms of keeping our top options happy - unless we'd had a considerable bid for one of our injury-prone lads (Gomez, Matip) which we would never have accepted in January.

Identify market value, acquire players for under market value, sell at peak price if it suits us, use analytics over scouting "by eye" - do so by generating our own funds. It has largely worked for us.

I do agree that we have a tendency to start any given season "a player short" of where we'd want to be, but it's a fine balancing act. We do it better than most. As to spending how those around us do (Arsenal seemingly HAVE to as Arteta wouldn't get close without it, Mancs like drunken Sailors, Chelsea with rule-bending long contracts, Man City via breaking the rules) I can genuinely say I prefer our way of doing it - but I appreciate that's subjective.