Ronnie#5

You're free to believe whatever you want Rimbeux

Very interesting and maybe we're getting a bit of insight into the core problem at LFC. - self preservation. We always knew Ayre was more about this than anything else but if he's the one holding back the purse strings cos he's afraid of losing his job then that answers loads of questions. I think Bascombe is way off absolving FSG for this though. Logic states that FSG made Ayre CEO in the summer cos they've got a strategy & he's HAPPY to hold back on the wages and they trust him implicitly to do so. Hence why they seem content to have a hands off approach with the club as they good old Iano will always do as he's told.

I read it alright and agree with lots of it though I disagree with the core assertion that transfer fee's are the main determinant to a teams success. I subscribe to the Soccernomics theory that it's more about wages but realise that you have to pay the fee's as well. Paul has his Tomkins Transfer Index so he's kinda wedded to that as a model.

Ah I'm not saying he's perfect. He's far from it. I'm just saying that there isn't a manager on the planet who could win the league (and meet LFC fans expectations) with this budget.

It really is. I want LFC to win the league. Badly. I was 13 for the last one and didn't get to go on the ale to celebrate. Istanbul was the best and worst thing to happen as it was the best few days of my LFC supporting life but also like any good 'high' just left me craving more and more of it and hence why last year was so great! So that's why I want this lot to step up or f*** off cos their 'cleverness' isn't going to cut it. I can't settle for f***ing 4th (which ties into your Arsenal point), that's a horrible existence for a LFC fan and I'm afraid that's exactly what this lot want which is sickening considering its the polar opposite of their strategy with the Red Sox. Which is why I keep saying they're not arsed cos they've proven that when they're engaged, they're really effective owners.

I actually think he's having a very subtle pop at them there ("it depends on the strategy of the owners") and also Ayre....his comments about 'getting deals over the line' is very reminiscent of Rafa's "talking & talking" press conference post Athens about Rick Parry. Its very simple. Rodgers is a smart bloke & has copped on that he's ultimately going to get fired for Liverpool failing to win the league but he knows it s a near impossible task with the budget he's dealing with. It'd be like firing your builder for delivering a 4 bed semi on a 3 bed semi budget but you wanted an 8 bed mansion so he has to go. We've the 5th largest wages bill in PL (and I'd say there's a hare's breath between us and Spurs heading into this year) so our level is 3rd to 6th. Miracles happen and nearly did last season but league titles are rarely miraculous and surely our fate last season proves that. Stronger squad means we win the league. End of story. We were using 12/13 outlfield players whilst City/Chelsea have 19/20 to choose from. He's trying to let the fans know this. Rafa did the same thing but he was dealing with a crowd that booed him off the park the day we topped the table in 08/09 so stood no chance when the board wanted rid. Rodgers has the support of most of the crowd but that'll turn and the more d****eads that call into 606 etc ranting about how "he blew" the Suarez money the easier it is for the club to use him as the patsy if things go sour. This isn't a Rodgers thread so I'll leave it there but the point stands that I think he's very pissed off with the whole thing and is trying to apply what pressure he has on the ownership to open up the wallets and pay the wages required to land the required talent. It's essential maintenance is what it is.

I've no idea why I'm forced into this but for the purposes of clarification in case I might be misrepresented by your personal definitions of English language terms: Definition of thriving: 1. to prosper; be fortunate or successful. How have Liverpools commercial dept prospered & been successful: 50% increase in commercial revenue between 2011/12 & 12/13 (£31m) and this is before the Garuda & DD deals and other local partnerships agreed in last 18 months. Only team other than Utd to actually have a training kit deal. NOT a definition of thriving: Innovative Market Leader Exceeding all expectations Outstanding stufeckingpendous If I were to be as pedantic as you I'd also question your definition of a "couple of months" for Billy Hogan in the job unless for you a "couple of months" equates to 32 of them http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-billy-hogan-appointed-3345577 SR had a pop at me for point scoring yet you spent 6 posts on "thriving" whilst obviously knowing what I meant & you also constantly referred to my lack of facts. Well I hope I've cleared everything up now. But ... I really couldn't give a rats about any of this as my main point for wading into this thread was to say that I don't think FSG are arsed about the football operation of the club. Like Molby said all the rest is just noise. So I'm done discussing commercial deals as they matter f*** all to me when I go the game. They're not arsed and I'm happy to discuss this with anyone.

Fair enough SR but he asked for proof and I gave it. An FT article which shows a 50% increase in commercial turnover wasn't evidence enough to show we're thriving in that dept so I'm sorry if I got exasperated. I'm all for a discussion but the same poster also questioned my point on Chelsea being in profit which I also offered proof for yet no comeback on that. You're entirely correct tho. I'm not arsed about point scoring and realise how those posts would come across. It is what it is and I think we've reached the point where we're all talking in circles in this thread.

Serous qs NYR... Are you telling me that John Henry/FSG assume that Higuain & Benzema would 'cost' the same Lallana et al? Seriously. You think they don't give the commitee a budget which also includes the small matter of wages?! Seriously?! If correct then you believe that Toni Kroos on a 5 yr deal at fee of 20m is far cheaper than Adam Lallana on a 5 year deal at 28m and the transfer commitee might as well commit hari-kiri for that one.

2 mins on google: http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/153244-dunkin-sign-first-pl-partnership-with-lfc http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/163737-liverpool-reveal-new-garuda-training-kit Oh and here's an article which shows our commercial income had increased by 50% prior to these 2 deals lasts year ... http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d0b40aa-e298-11e3-a829-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3O9LFAcap I think you told me you were a trader of some sort so I hope you out more time into researching your trades than you do with your posts.

What have they actually spent? Take out the cost of buying the club (which they got for a song) is they're actual expenditure any more than say Lerner @ Villa?! And as for not being arsed, you're talking about tours and the main stand. Well whoop de f***ing do. Any gobs***e with acess to a newspaper could've told you that since Utd were coining with tours overseas that maybe it's a good idea for us to head over there. Did they invent the concept or am I missing something? As for the main stand, it's a financial no brainier & I'm sorry to say but it took them over 4 years to get a spade in the ground. It wasn't exactly Russian efficiency. And I haven't for a second intimated that they're not arsed with the financial side of the club. They gave that to Billy Hogan. It's thriving despite what RP seems to think. Their not arsed about the football operation of the club. You can tell me they are but I'd doubt it as I've worked with/for serous investors and this lot aren't arsed. I think they bought a pig in a poke and they're living with the consequences. If you honesty believe they're applying the same level of effort/interest on this side of the Atlantic as they are with the Red Sox then I'm missing a huge amount of unseen work cos it ain't there. Ian Ayre is an easy target but he's their easy target and you to wonder how a serious guy like Henry made that call & why.

But none of this is as important as their neglect of how the football operations side of the club which was my original point andi don't get your reply to my point about expecting more on that front as I never said anything about bailouts.

The club has had a loss for past 2 sets of accounts as it's been writing off bad debts from H&G era such as £45m on the new stadium. The losses from the previous accounts were based on investment in the 1st team. Seeing as you've been paying attn to my posts on this topic you'll note Ive always stated that my big problem is that they made 1 serious effort at investment under Comolli/Kenny. It blew up and they've since walked away. I thought they were serious investors but they're not. I've never suggested they borrow to buy. I've suggested that they invest. They've chosen to invest in the stadium by providing an % free loan which is fair enough but thats capital expenditure which in theory they would get back on the balance sheet once the stand is generating income. Costs are down relative to t/o. The wages bill is flat in a mega-inflationary environment. All the figs bandied about as proof that the likes of Flight & I are wrong are from a 10 month set of accounts manipulated to get us on the right side of FFP. Lets see what the next set say. My basic point is that they're not arsed. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I gave that up years ago. I'm merely articulating my reasons for being very sceptical about FSG.

yes. Yes. £18.4m in last set of accounts.

Chelsea are, now, one of the best run clubs in Europe. In real profit with a top class football operation. Look at how they've got ahead of FFP. Ian Ayre is still doodling on his harley notebook. AC Milan are the picture of what happens when the rich man is no longer bothered to subvent his plaything and I've no idea about PSG other than they cook the books for FFP and look to have gotten away with it so smoeone's doing something in an exec level at the club. Its about competence SR and that's where I agree with you that it should be applied to all levels of football and you cope as you can. But more should be expected at the bigger clubs cos they can afford to hire the best exec talent.

Its not on purpose, it just doesn't do anything for them. I honestly think John Henry would rather watch a game of tier 2 college baseball than an LFC game. He tried it, he's not arsed with it anymore. Werner even less so IMO and if NYR is to be believed, these 2 were the MOST enthusiastic about LFC in FSG so it's not hard to imagine the lack of arsed-ness among the investment group as a whole if these 2 have lost interest. Bu like you said, they're very arsed about the commercial side and so they put their #1 guy Billy Hogan in the job. Lo and behold we're thriving on that end. I remain utterly convinced that if John Henry was arsed about LFC we'd be in a far healthier position 'on the field' as the one time he was arsed over the past 2 years - Suarez to Arsenal - he nailed it. But he's not arsed. Doesn't make him the devil, doesn't mean we build a statue of him either.

You're general sentiment is obviously right SR but to answer your qs of "Why?" well it's because not all clubs have a turnover of hundreds of millions of £ and therefore the bigger guys have greater expectations around the isses Ed the Wool mentioned because they have the resources. If we were to apply your logic to the retail business it's like saying why would a customer of Tesco's expect it to be run any better than a local corner shop. I agree that we can sometimes be a bit precious about our club but it doesn't change the fact that we should expect more from the current ownership.

They're not NOT arsed. They can't help it, but they're just putting lippy on their big ugly kidney lips. Strained expressions aside Case, but they certainly can help it. They've let the club drift the last few years post Brendan appt (it's as if Henry threw himself into the process and then just gotnf***ed off with the whole thing). And you can't honestly tell me that 1 appearance for a game at Anfield in the last 2.5 seasons is an ownership that's arsed! And don't get me going on their recent appointment of a CEO.. I'm not saying they're the devil. Far from it, they're just not arsed.

It's bizarre mate. DH made the exact same point on Twitter last week. We've been properly worn down obviously.

I'm basing this on nothing other than back of an envelope accounting but I'd put our t/o for 14/15 well in excess of £300m. I'd also say our wage bill has remained pretty stagnant these past 3 years. So amidst all these suppositions is the one that we can easily afford to splash the cash on the occasional player. But We don't yet we do spend fees. Why's this? My theory is that Fees are amortised over players contract and one of many benefits is that we can sell at a book profit quite easily under this model. Eg Suarez net gain on £75m fee might be close to £65m. His wages are dead money though so hence the willingness if FSG to sanction what seem crazy high fees (Marko, Lallana) but they're extremely reluctant to commit to the 'package' as the wages are far costlier in terms of accounting. I said this 2 years ago and I havent changed my mind - Just cos FSG are not bad for LFC doesn't meant they're good for us. They're not arsed. It's plain to see. No point going demented over it though as it is what it is.

Which part?

I'm fairly sure (based on nothing other than normal foreign footballer behaviour) that he'd have come here if we offered more money. As for competing with the Mancs: 1. I think our next set of accounts will show our commercial strength 2. Utd have 4 players on over £200k pw. I'm not saying we can do that, but we can have 2. Especially withReina, Johnson & now Gerrard off the books. An elephant with no cash. C'mon lads, you're being very naive if you think Chilean player wouldn't join LFC for £10m more over the length of his contract. Do you really think David Silva, Yaya or Aguero grew up dreaming of the wonders of Salford?! Of course not. You pays your money you gets your man.

We could've used the money to offer the 'package' required to land Sanchez. We didn't. He's costing Arsenal £113m over his 5 year deal. The £75m or so we got from Suarez should've been enough to help us blow Arsenal out of the water, especially considering the fact that we were saving c.£7m pa on Suarez wages alone. I simply can't get over the fact that we're still focussed on fees when it's always been the wages that matter. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2875871/Luis-Suarez-Barcelona-confirmed-costly-deal-football-history-big-money-set-cost-Catalan-giants-199million.html Source for total cost of packages Exactly. So let's get real with our expectations. Utd are s*** but they've allocated their wage budget to the area that matters and that's what will prob bail them out this season.

What's our wage bill? Think about this: Utd's front 3 - Rooney (£270k pw); RvP (£240k pw); Falcao (£320k pw) earn more than most of our starting XI's & that includes the high earners in Gerrard & Johnson. Tho with the 'breaking news' I think this post will be seen in Feb!

Ian Ayre is the CEO of Liverpool FC so I can't imagine how such a situation could arise