Billy Talbot

Yeah, there are plenty of dissimilarities. How they bought their clubs is one. however, the glaring similarity is that they're both extracting value from their clubs rather than investing in them. That's why each of them own them. FSG are just sitting on their potential dividends rather than taking them each year, either way, LFC won't ever see any of it.

Yes, that's ownership model we have. It's barely different from the Glazers'. FWIW, I'm not advocating a model like City's, but the pervasive idea that FSG have been benevolent, or even "good" owners for Liverpool needs to be challenged. Bar the window dressings they're taking us to the cleaners.

I agree that LFC benefits from increased revenue from the infrastructure, but that pales into insignificance when commercial and media revenues are going through the roof, vastly inflating the turnover and value of the club. I'm not saying that the infrastructure loans are a bad thing per se, just that seen as part of the larger investment/return relationship between FSG and LFC, it shows how one sided it is. FSG are paying nothing for it and getting a whole load in return. Liverpool are paying for all of it and getting the crumb of comfort that we're marginally better for it and match-going is a better, albeit more expensive experience. There's one thing being happy that the club generates it's own money, but another being happy with the club also generating huge value for an entity that's not the football club. FSG bought LFC for £300m. They now value it at £3-4Bln. 12 years ago. FSG have not invested anywhere near enough to justify that.

There's only one group profiting from the growth and success of Liverpool FC and it's not Liverpool FC, it's FSG. That's clear from the way in which they've funded infrastructure investment though loans to the club. FSG lend the money, LFC pay the loans, FSG get their money back and also own the appreciated asset that LFC becomes, which can only be leveraged or realised by FSG, not LFC. That's not self-sufficient.

Darwin "has a chance". Good lad.

I remember thinking bajcetic looked interesting in preseason, but understandably physically underdeveloped. Doesn’t really seem to be holding him back at all

Yeah. Those t***s have properly regained their spawn.

I think Mount is a good player. He's not a 280kpw player though. But he gets about, he's tall (ish), he's technically good and seems to be in round about the right place tactically (but who knows). If he could convert his uncanny habit of hitting the post into hitting the bottom corner, he'd be brilliant.

Yeah, I agree, that's what I'm saying, the value of the club isn't being leveraged in the clubs favour, if and when it gets leveraged it's leveraged in the favour of FSG. Any benefit to us is incidental. FWIW, I think they will inject the money for Bellingham, but again, that's not for LFCs benefit, it's because they'll see that as a way to appreciate their asset. It's just that at this time, what's best for them and best for us overlap. It's like a house landlord realising they need to put a new kitchen in. All good. Tenant gets use of new kitchen. Value of landlord's property appreciates, landlord now has option borrow on that increase value to help fund next acquisition and tenant pays higher rent which pays for the cost of the kitchen. In the meantime, the bathroom is still ****ed but that can wait. After all, they've just paid for a new kitchen.

The major problem with FSG's ownership, despite their initial assertions that Liverpool FC would get to spend whatever money it generated is that the investment FSG have put into infrastructure means they get to have their cake and eat it, whilst we get the crumbs. Even as low interest interest rates, LFC is servicing those loans. Those new stands and new £300m training facilities are being paid for by the club, not by FSG. Whilst at the same time, the value of FSG's asset - LFC is going through the roof and that value isn't being leveraged in LFC's benefit, but FSGs. In that way, their ownership model is no different to any other leveraged buyout. It's no different to the Glazers.

Yeah, I used to be able to perform the piss trick pretty consistently. It's one of the reasons I drink loads when I'm watching the footy ;)

Oh, I think everyone does it. There's a definite mentality difference though between attempting to make a fair challenge, accepting you can't and then making a foul, and just going straight to the foul because a team would rather take the booking and reset. That's highlighted by Osman's suggestion that there were missed opportunities to make fouls :) Interesting that the clearly biased co-commentary that Osman has been hired to perform made no attempt to hide it. And they wonder why they get called a small club.

Yeah, I noticed that. I mean, he could have at least said something like, "Everton had two opportunities to make a challenge", but no... "FOUL HIM!!"

I thought he had a good game last night. He turned well and didn't dwell on the ball. Pressed well too. Him, Darwin and Mo looked a good combination.

I can, one at the right age and right profile is bigger asset and pretty risk free. FSG have history of it too. It's less likely they will sign the 2 or 3 £30-70m midfielders that we also need, which is the problem.

RB had an incentive to do that though, they knew he wanted to leave, wanted to come here and we were giving them top whack. He had a £48m release clause for the summer he left anyway, so if they left it, that's all they would have got even if he went somewhere else. Dortmund keep saying they want to keep Bellingham, he's contracted to 2025 and BVB say there's no release. Absolutely no incentive for BVB to agree to that kind of thing with anyone. Not until winter 2024.

Yeah, Nunez. Ideally he starts scoring quickly, because that would put a shine on a sh!t-show of a season. If he doesn't, we'll need to see some pretty good progress in the first half of next season, otherwise we're gonna need to start looking for a new striker.

Yeah, indeed. That was the PL and the FA making sure they stayed in control of it though by finding a solution that the membership were happy with and avoided clubs taking each other to court. The only clubs that would be happy with Man City getting a slap on the wrist are Man City. Sure, there will be other clubs that would prefer this not to be happening, like Newcastle and Chelsea, but even they will know that the pretention of the league being clean is important, otherwise there's no point doping it. Whilst the majority will see this either as an opportunity to stick the boot it or one to level things up a bit and a deterrent.

The PL have history of shutting down litigation between clubs. They did it when Sheff Utd were threatening to sue West Ham over Tevez. However, I think that will increase the pressure to sanction them with enough that a majority of PL clubs are happy with. So a suspended points deduction and/or a fine won't wash. If they get found guilty, the other 19 clubs and those that have been relegated whilst offences have been committed will all want their piece of meat.

Points deductions for the seasons they get found to have broken the rules will suffice. So long as the points deductions are enough to mean they don't keep any titles they won during those years. If the PL have any balls, then this is the least they should do. Also, I'd think the most likely to be robust against appeal. I also hope for a whopping big suspended points deduction to ward off them doing similar in the future. Again, suspending it should make it more difficult to successfully appeal. Relegating them or deducting points in the future for something they'll just say they've not been found guilty of, unless there's explicit PL rules outlining penalties like there is for going into administration won't stick.

I'm still on the Gapko bus. I think I might have got off the Fabinho bus though.

Yeah, it was obvious to anyone that wanted to see it that we needed another midfielder at least in the summer. It was just ignored. I get that we have 7 first team players in the squad but they were never enough. If it was a numbers problem then we should have sold one or two. Also yes, Elliot is an exciting prospect but in what position and in what system does he play? He's not disciplined or tactically aware enough to play in our midfield and not physical or fast enough to play in our attack. Yes, he might in improve in both regards, but the question stands as to why we're relying on him currently. He's not a solution to either.

I don't believe he's ever gonna think Liverpool are better off if he resigns mid-contract. He's not a quitter.

I think more likely is that FSG see him as part of their asset. Not sure new owners will think the same way if this continues.