well, we invested in some talent before kinda cost us quite a bit, unfortunately didn't blossom as much as we liked.

maybe a go at the lower rungs of minor or non leagues may unearth some gem stones. 
I know some may accuse of us of having little faith, i don't want to sound like a party popper, i'm a realist.

What lies ahead for LFc will be difficult. We all acknowledge that next season ManC, ManU, Arsenal, Chelsea are in front in the group for players destination (A list players and big talent). Liverpool, Tottenham, Newcastle comes next. 

Hopefully next season, we'll have some hogwarts magic to help us to somewhat cast away "hit the post syndrome" 

     

Good post. I agree i don;t really rate Johnson myself. Flash of brilliance but other than that, he's very quiet in most games. If we're gonna go by potential then might as well just stick with Raheem whose already on our payroll. If we're going to spend some money on a new winger then it simply has to be better than potential.

Not sure why we are after so many English player? Don't tell me they are serious about building an English version of Barca?

someone forget damien comolli...

But who negotiated the contract ? and who agreed to pay those wages ? It's not a debate because none of us know the full details.

Sky Italia are reporting that Galatasaray have signed Newcastle striker Demba Ba for a fee of €11m. We should get him though 

Why not?

not so sure about this..but i read somewhere that stadium development and facilities wont be part of ffp..
Source

Yes CL cash is important but that doesn't mean you can't take loans, if you still receive significant revenue from other areas (sponsors for example) you will still get the loan. We are getting some of the biggest sponsorship deals in football and that was achieved even without CL, which proves that Liverpool FC is still a big enough name/brand that guarantees return. Apart from loans, they were discussing about stadium naming deals which would make a lot of sense too so the loan wouldn't have to be too big a cost for us to bear.

As for the 50 million loss, it was mostly the mess left by our previous ownership. H&G didn't deliver their promise of a new stadium and even more so they didn't even pay for the design and planning costs which John Henry described as a futuristic but costly and unpractical. Adding that to the contract termination costs for the dismissal of staffs and various other debts from the H&G era. So I wouldn't say we make losses every year as that was a one-off situation, the club should do fine as long as FSG keep up their effort in reducing our unreasonably high wage bill and continue attracting big sponsorship deals.

HKS design

AFL design

There you go. All the answers here.  Heaven forbid that no club outside the top four will ever be able to take a loan. Even Leeds Utd who were far less profitable loaned themselves into administration. We are still a highly commercial club and like cloud said much of the £50 million loss is attributed to H&G. We are in a far more stable position financially now with our debt having been cleared. Also the loss did not take into account our deal with Warrior. We finished 8th, still have the Warrior deal to bank on and if we expand our stadium, cash flow will improve. Banks see that we have a business case. Reducing the wage bill, sponsorship deals, merchandising, etc are all part of a business case. Banks don't only loan money to those already wealthy but also those with the potential to gain wealth. Banks will get back their money either way. How do you reckon H&G loaned all that money and put us in the red in the first place? FSG have a far better reputation.

Sudden urge to induce sarcasm.

Are you forgetting that when H&G took over, we didn't have Standard Chartered nor did we have Warrior? I imagine that we also paid more in terms of wages relatively speaking. They didn't only take one loan did they? They did it over their tenure as owners so much so that RBS decided against anymore loans and they demanded payments for the interest owed. Like I said earlier anyway, banks loan you money if you can show them a proposal or a blueprint for success. I mentioned Leeds earlier, which is an example of a failed venture. Banks are more than willing to loan money and collect on interest because in the end, someone will more than likely pay and a club like Liverpool is not short of prospective owners.

Won't repeat what Cloud mentioned, been one step of me that bloke. Renovating Anfield will be less expensive and even if we take a hit in the short run, the long term benefits far outweigh any loss in the time it will take to complete renovations. FSG has repeatedly mentioned that they are planning for the long term. As it is, we've been shortchanged for years by having a smaller stadium. What's 1-2 years in the bigger scheme of things? 1 step back. 2 steps forward.

However, speaking to ESPNsoccernet Broughton admitted that he had searched the globe but had been unable to find a mega rich investor willing to buy the club.

"We searched the world looking for another owner like the ones at Chelsea and Manchester City. With all of Liverpool's traditions, heritage, history and powerful global brand, I must admit I thought it would be possible to find one,” he explained.

"We hoped for someone who wanted a 'trophy asset', but having scoured the world without finding one, the conclusion is that there are no more Romans [Abramovich] out there.

"Yes, of course, it is disappointing that even a name like Liverpool failed to attract one, so I cannot imagine other club having much luck."

The chairman also hinted that he was a little surprised he couldn’t attract the type of owner he preferred as he believed the lure of a club like Liverpool would have been enough of an enticement.

Not quite true on that though. Its an open secret that we had received several offers to buy the club, amongst them FSG and one other prospective owner whom I believe H&G claimed made a much larger offer and is supposedly some UAE backed consortium that would possibly see us spending the way City has been spending. We are not short of suitors.

And yes you might be right that a new stadium might be beneficial in the sense that we might want to further expand the stadium, maybe 70,000 or even 80,000 all seater. Truth is though, how much more would 10,000-20,000 more seats give u? Not saying it isn't good but can we even afford to do that now? I don't like the sound of getting more big ass loans after finally cleaning our decks and risk another near-administration situation. I would rather have funds focused on improving our league position in securing CL position.

The decision isn't up to us anyway, FSG are the ones who does all the work and evaluation, they know the exact costs and benefits and I trust them at that. Redeveloping Anfield is not a certainty anyways, there are houses and people (some Everton fans too probably) living in the area around the stadium which we intend to develop, as much as FSG likes the idea of refurbishing that plan might not come to fruition.