Indeed. I understand it’s also got a rodent problem.
This nuance between the clubs money and FSGs money is interesting.
You see a lot of comments, mostly on Twitter and other social media cesspits, but also sometimes on here, suggesting that all FSG are doing is ‘spending the clubs money’
It’s a really interesting idea, that we don’t apply anywhere else. We don’t suggest owners of theatres are only spending the theatres money when the do up the seats.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no FSG money and Clubs money. FSG own the club, and the money their club brings in is theirs to use as they see fit. One of the reasons I support FSG and would like them to continue for many years is that they do put the revenue and income the club earns back into the club.
For anyone who does subscribe to this ‘ the club’s money’ idea, I’d be interested to hear what you think the clubs money would be without FSG. Both in terms of commercial revenue and competition money, a lot of it seems to be driven by their strategy, their plan, their appointments and their stewardship. Is there a baseline income we could expect under an average ownership? Say we had Moshiri flapping about with managers and not really having much of a plan to work to, what would the ‘clubs money’ be then?
I think we should be thankful to them for making the stadium expansion happen though. There were a lot of hurdles on the way, beyond the mere funding. Moores and Parry for instance never found a way beyond them. fsg managed to get a positive energy around the club’s expansion project, and the city bought into it with it’s own regeneration scheme. It was a positive example of gathering existing energies together, and making something happen finally, after decades of paralysis. For this, they deserve a lot of credit.
Same for uniting Kirkby and Melwood. Previous regimes told us that it was impossible to do that, but they got it done eventually.
The club’s money is FSG’s money. They’re in a business they enjoy doing and they spend the money the club makes. Hard to ask for more than that really.
An older model, granted, but two owners ago we saw another version of the club run on the ‘clubs’ money, and it was under David Moores. Lifelong red. Rich fella, not mega rich like the new breed, but quite rich. But… we were falling way behind Man Utd, commercially and on the pitch.
He made a bad choice and sold to disastrous leveraged buy out crooks, and we went backwards, possibly even to the brink of going under.
Enter FSG, who once again are running the show according to ‘the club’s money’ and they are doing a good job of it. Prem, CL, very good team, world class manager, stadium upgraded with more to come, training facilities boosted further. Commercial revenue doing well (I get the possible dividend argument via the holding company in Delaware).
Apart from two artificially inflated teams in Chelsea and Man City, and at that point we have consistently said we don’t want to be a sportswashing enterprise, is there anything better than FSG out there?
Maybe there is someone better out there, but I’ve not seen it. They are not perfect, but they are doing a good job, and it works because their interests and our interests - a winning team - have converged, albeit for FSG it is primarily for a return on investment, chiefly through growing the asset; whereas for fans it is primarily about the football itself, and the glory.
Apart from the mistakes that FSG have done , mostly - the one with the ESL… , They haven’t exactly done too bad by the club.
And that ESL mistake was done by all the major clubs in the League.
It’s better than promising the world and not delivering, the UK government seems good at that.
The story of every government.
People get greedy and forget the recent past. 30 years!! Now we won it. We cannot do that every year.
I think they have been good, long term custodians. The odd cock up and embarrassing mistake but they learn.
~68% of members from Liverpool Supporters Trust, Spirit of Shankly vote.
…establishment of a Supporters Board, which would be written into the club’s regulations making it a legally binding agreement. SOS will be head…
etc, etc.
Who are these people, voting on my behalf?
That was me Woolton Red. Do as yer told!
Just kidding…
I guess we are going to have our own comic series soon then.
Football is increasingly at risk of becoming a farce, where a team can spend 100m for a player, and all the while use obstructive tactics to stay beyond regulatory supervision…
I don’t know where the appropriate thread for this is, but I’m intrigued by our latest business. New contract to Trent that only extends a year. New contracts for Fabinho and Alisson, that takes them until they’re 33 and 35 respectively, about the time when they’d probably get shuffled onto a James Milner track, if we do extend their contracts at all. It seems like we’re planning to let a lot of our big spends either finish their careers at Liverpool, or go on a free transfer.
With that in mind, I’d be surprised if Henderson got a contract extension. Obviously that’s the way we fans would like it to go, but I think if we extended his contract it would definitely be by one or two years. Strange that our next captain’s contract doesn’t last very long after that… I have a feeling that Alexander-Arnold will see a new contract in the next year or two, and he’ll soon be the pace-setter in terms of what wages we’re offering.
I’m not sure there is much of a market for our better players without them actively looking to move or us pushing them out. We will be reluctant to sell to City, Utd and Chelsea (and they to buy our older players) while Real Madrid and Barca aren’t in the position to spend heavily at the moment and may not be for another few years. PSG are really the only club I could see spending big and we haven’t seen much interest from them in our players to date.
I really think the future of football is that players will increasingly move on free transfers. There have been some notable freebies this window.