We want success in the next few years, not in 2045. Starliner……
Given how tightly secured our club now is (in terms of rumours), wouldn’t surprise me if they just announced a sale tomorrow.
1 Like
If it’s into the club it will be the club, if it’s into FSG then probably nothing.
To be honest you can’t really say the club isn’t running itself it would be an odd turn now for FSG to suddenly run the club completely differently and why would someone invest in Liverpool and for the funds to benefit FSG?
They might as well just invest in FSG like red bird did if the aim was to benefit from a new NBA purchase.
I’m afraid that that scenario will be it.
I had to google the reference.
Typical of today’s football fan though. “I want it and I want it now”.
What’s wrong with waithing until 2045?
1 Like
A lot of the rest of the article is the usual “sources close to the club” rubbish, but this part stands out.
Again, maybe it’s just my confirmation bias, but this is Broughton talking about what Werner supposedly said to him, so I’m thinking it won’t be too far from the truth.
3 Likes
of all of the theories around FSG this story hits closest to the truth to me.
My neighbor last summer saw the housing market going nuts. A few years away from retirement and owning a townhome on a gold course deep in the valley already which he bought for planned retirement. So on a whim, he threw an obscenely high price tag on his home. $1.42mil. The day it listed, he had 8 showings. sold for $1.51m. Laughed all the way to the bank. he’ll be retiring early.
2 Likes
Disappointing to be honest if they are not at least seeking investment.
Club can’t sustainably challenge without it to be honest. I did think their aim was top 4 every season. That’s generally fine as with Klopp we know he can make more of it. This sounds pointless.
1 Like
That’s been said almost every season since they’ve been here, yet I count 4 seasons where we could have won, or did win the league. If we’re not counting cheats then we would have won 4 times.
We can sustainably challenge based on the strength of the organisation/how the club is run. However, what we cannot do is utterly dominate, especially in an environment where cheating is not just widely condoned, but also celebrated.
Forget about all the other names splashing money about for all the good that’s done them so far. With Jürgen, without the cheaters in the league, we’d have won 3 of the league titles since he’s been here. That’s not just challenging.
5 Likes
Problem is when Jurgen arrived a top market striker cost 35-40m.
Now they are costing close to 70m and that’s for a guy with less proven experience (eg Salah). Keita’s market value was around 40m the Keita’s of today are now double and more, and he was cheap due to his contract.
The market has ballooned and the club needs investment and its needs it sharpish. I couldn’t care less about spending every summer on a new toy but our squad it’s ageing and the worth of the talent is dwindling. If we sell out close to top talent we are still left with the ageing players we kept and youngsters.
Even if it’s a high load of investment every 5 years to keep fresh it has to be done. If all they are looking at is to see how much their asset is worth well it’s going be half as much if the reliance is on Klopp to continue to achieve with a team that has age in its legs and a few youngsters.
Also the statement seem to disturb the horses so to speak, so yeah thanks for that.
Setting Chelsea aside, who is this?
Again, who else besides Chelsea has splashed out that much on players? Genuine question by the way, because I quite clearly haven’t kept track of transfers.
If how they handle the Red Sox is anything to go by, they seem to operate on a model where they splash out a lot initially on a team that can be kept together for years, try to keep it at the highest level on the lowest cost, before repeating the cycle.
Furthermore, my point was really that unless I misremember, our finances can more than handle the same type of spending that brought us to this level, i.e. players on the cusp, who are undervalued at the moment but with a little nudge can explode, for multiple players across the board.
I think we won’t go for the top of the market, even should we have the cash, because the value simply isn’t there. It’s not even about value for money necessarily, just that the players end up not justifying even a fraction of the cost, usually. We tend to do the bulk of our spending around the Gakpo type of players, taking the lesser known ones and doing some magic with them. Off the top of my head, the only really breath-taking signings we’ve done have been Virgil, Alisson, and Keïta. The rest of our business really seems to be done at lower ends of the market regardless.
1 Like
Liverpool thought 60m was over priced for Enzo but look at what chelsea payed.
1 Like
I’m not sure Chelsea is a good example of anything. They are overpaying considerably and if this buying spree ends in failure (and it might). They won’t have much wiggle room to make changes for many years.
1 Like
2 Likes
First point - Striker 70m plus add ones with a break out season at Benfica, I’m not slagging him off I’m simply saying he is what you have to pay now.
Boston are on a 5 year spell of doing very little. If you think spending 40m this summer will refresh the side I’m sorry. I have no issues with them but they must seek investment and it doesn’t feel like it (as written there). If Klopp is given enough funds to purchase the one or two they need in midfield as well as freshen one at the back that’s fine. As I said it potentially could come through red bird type investment directly into the club.
I’m being rather realistic so a bit odd you should jump on my comments. This is if Broughton is right and we don’t know, we also don’t know what impact the likes of Ox and Keita as well as others leaving would be on the wage bill.
As for Chelsea setting a bench mark they are not but we bought Salah, Beneteke (I know) and others who were seen as our main strikers for 30-35m that’s now obviously double. If we can’t spend money then we have to change the way we restrict who we will buy, we can’t say all eggs in on say a Touchemani, like we may do on Jude.
If I’m honest we keep hearing excuses fed out and it’s becoming tired, maybe just a bit more honesty. I said it about the team a few weeks back but the club could be a bit well better at communication.
1 Like
Not really jumping on your comments or you in particular, just pointing out that there’s room for the club itself to invest, not so much whether or not FSG does anything. Not sure there’s anything controversial about that either.
In any case, it was 75m€ or £64m. Granted, it’s still significantly more than the £40m ballpark we supposedly paid for Salah/Mané, but he still put in nearly a goal every game for Benfica.
1 Like
What excuses? What honesty?
I find it odd because the club doesn’t owe anyone an explanation over transfer dealings.
I’m not sure any investment from another party sees any change in approach or spending unless that party buys the club outright.
Someone buying 10% say just dilutes FSG’s overall holding with that money landing in their pocket and not the clubs. What indication have FSG ever given that they’d invest any money they made from selling a minority stake into the playing side. Far more likely they’re taking some cash whilst the market is high and reducing their risk.
A minority investor is also highly unlikely to pile their own money into the playing side of things if they aren’t in overall control.
And finally, even if they could find someone willing to buy a minority or even a majority share, there’s a huge risk of differences of opinion and approach. Last thing you need is infighting at the board level.
In my opinion, the only thing that sees a significant change in the approach and ultimately the degree of owner investment in the playing squad is a full sale. There might be some additional investment this summer to get us back to top four status but I’d expect it to impact future spending. Ultimately, if they are open to selling the club, a year or even two out of the CL isn’t going to have that big an impact on the overall value providing the TV deals keep going up.
2 Likes
It’s the leaks already that lack of CL will hamper our spending powers. I’d rather they just say instead of leak it through others.
Anyhow I think the club needs some investment you don’t agree, not going around the houses on it.
1 Like
We need more investment in the side to keep us competitive moving forward. By competitive I mean able to challenge for the title and CL.
Will FSG provide the necessary investment? That is the question!
For all those who say that FSG will insist that the club continues to live according to its means, that is fair enough. But then at that point, there is an interpretation over what living according to your means might actually entail.
For example, will FSG be willing to add debt in order make sure that Klopp has the tools to complete the rebuilding of his next great Liverpool side? I’m not talking about a lot of financial risk. I am talking about a very modest risk, with the debt easily serviceable due to bringing in so much money - the third highest income of all the clubs in the world.
I’m not looking for an unrealistic Chelsea-style splurge, nor am I looking for a new owner who will cheat, financially speaking.
I am looking for an owner who will leverage the advantages that we do have, primarily for the benefit of Liverpool Football Club, and it’s sporting prospects.
Right now, two huge advantages we have are Jurgen Klopp and our financial health. There is a timeliness to both. We won’t always have Jurgen Klopp, and our financial health might begin to slip, in relation to our competitors, if we fail to keep a competitive side on the pitch.
I think FSG are able, per above, to do all that we need to stay at the top.
If their instinct is to be more cautious, then I would prefer a parting of the ways.
2 Likes