Dec 28 2012, 09:34 AM
QUOTE(Duke Red @ Dec 28 2012, 08:48 AM)
FSG are indeed new to football but not to the world of business. Already they have overseen several lucrative deals at the club and have done well to manage our finances. Deficit spending is nay of the books and its a given we won't splurge in big players.
You are right that our appeal amongst big players will diminish as our absence from the CL continues but this is my assessment of things.
The first phase that lies before us is to fix the finances a the club, trim the wage bill and bring in young talent. We aren't going for an instant fix, that much is clear. This indicates we are going for the long haul by bringing in young lads who have their whole futures ahead of them. Much will depend on how they develop under the current regime.
Your last sentence is confusing. Did you mean "without $$$$$$", or "with"?
If its the former, then I am sure FSG will invest more cash on wages or players when we start generating a positive cash flow. No deficit spending is the policy. We should see a substantial uplift by the end of the season if you factor in Warrior and Chevrolet amongst other smaller deals. It's why I said earlier that I suspect Rodgers will get a bigger transfer kitty come the 2013 season.
Added on December 28, 2012, 9:25 amJust to add, I think FSG were owners we needed if not ones we wanted. I'm sure a good number if fans wished for a rich Sheikh to spend indiscriminately on players in the way City have. I personally do not. We have been pretty big spenders in terms of transfers and we still have not won the league. All this while we've been operating at a loss and it almost cost us two years ago. If we had been owned by banks, we would have had all our assets sold off and left with bare bones. It isn't something I want to see happen again and that's an understatement. FSG have stepped in and done what was necessary, what the club in the past tried to resist - "selling our souls". Liverpool was always a family club that was wary of OOTs. They felt an inherent need to protect the sanctity of the club from those who did not understand it. As noble as it may sound, it also meant that we fell behind our rivals in a commercial and economic sense. We are now playing catchup. This needs to be understood.
We are decades behind the mancs in terms of revenue. They've slashed their debt by orchestrating increased sponsorship deals. Last season Arsenal reported a profit of over £50 million while we recorded a loss of £50 million. Poles apart. This is the first thing that FSG are trying to address and it has direct consequences on the purchase of players and therefore, results. If we do finish the season with a positive cash flow, it will be a successful season to me, even if we finish 10th in the league, because it will mean we have more transfer kitty money, and we won't have to get into deficit spending. The club stays healthy.
Generating positive cashflow wouldnt be easy without the new stadium.
Arsenal had the foresight of the new stadium.
i have read in some forums that some fans do not even bother going to games because of the style of play.
i do not wish an shiekh or ruskkie mafia either. However, i wish we do sign 'some' world class
players to compliment the youngsters. As it is presently, we are a mid to bottom table team
supported by teenagers in the team. Its not gonna work like that.
Now for a speculative scenario, IF God forbid, we should lose the next two games, which IS a possibiity,
we would find ourselves sucked into the relegation zone again, what then would FSG think of
their austerity drive?
Quote
he could remain at inter and goyang kaki 
0.0474sec
0.82
7 queries
GZIP Disabled