Liverpool 2016/17

Status
Not open for further replies.
FSG are an investment group - their motives are pretty transparent and I don't think they try to hide anything.
They are willing to invest to a point - but they didn't reckon on the competition in the PL being so strong and with the likes of City and now other rivals spending as much as they have.
That's left them with a very big club - much larger than City (at present), but little room for significant growth.
Not as a business they're not. We have a higher market value and higher revenues.
 
Not as a business they're not. We have a higher market value and higher revenues.

Revenue is not the same as profit, and the point being that like for like, with a sugar daddy owner, Liverpool would surpass us very quickly. They're a much bigger brand with a much larger fanbase. We're catching them up, but we're not there yet. As a business, right now, yes, we're doing better than them, but as a football club, we're smaller.

We currently have a higher valued brand, but that's not same as brand recognition or size. Liverpool's value is falling due to lack of success, with success, they'd be ahead of us.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure you know what entitled means?
I know what entitled means.

Like the way you got relegated and your support still followed but now you have billions and it's all fair play.

Newcastle have been through the mill and have a billionaire owner yet they don't claim to have a right to win the CL or the prem.
You've spent a fair bit yourselves recently.
That is true.
 
Revenue is not the same as profit, and the point being that like for like, with a sugar daddy owner, Liverpool would surpass us very quickly. They're a much bigger brand with a much larger fanbase. We're catching them up, but we're not there yet. As a business, right now, yes, we're doing better then them, but as a football club, we're smaller.
have.

We currently have a higher valued brand, but that's not same as brand recognition or size. Liverpool's value is falling due to lack of success, with success, they'd be ahead of us.

To be honest all that shouldn't matter. 90 minutes on the pitch is where football is played.
 
Thing with the dippers is they have the entitled mentality they have sort of overrides the PL history they have so the assume the title win in in April the other year was simply the way things are and fail to recognise that in fact the blew it. It was a perfect set of circs for them with Suarez and Sturridge banging them in - Slippy Steve on his swan song and so on but when push comes to shove they didn't quite have it. They now have the boggo standard squad they have had through the PL years and the blew it........... but they still assume this year s always their year......
 
To be honest all that shouldn't matter. 90 minutes on the pitch is where football is played.

Indeed it is, but at the same time, there's no denying that money plays a huge part. Without it, we'd not have had our recent success, and likewise, United would not have been able to buy some the best talent around either.
Liverpool likewise, have used their wealth to dominate other clubs. Money might not guarantee success, but it can certainly improve your chances.
It's a shame that that is the case in sport, but it is. We've benefitted from it, and I don't think we should try to deny it. I just get frustrated when other clubs can't see how they have benefitted from it too.
 
I know what entitled means.

Like the way you got relegated and your support still followed but now you have billions and it's all fair play.

Newcastle have been through the mill and have a billionaire owner yet they don't claim to have a right to win the CL or the prem.
What City fan thinks they have the right to win the PL or CL? We might say we should expect to be challenging for it given the money we've spent, but that's not the same thing. I see entitled as believing you have a divine right to play in the Champions League every year because you were successful in the past. Like when you hear rag fans, or even some pundits, say that Man Utd are too big to play in the Europa League and only the Champions League is good enough for them (despite them not being good enough for the CL). Or the likes of Milan actually try and get the rules changed to take past glories into account in the CL seeding, because obvious such an illustrious team has an automatic right to be in the competition and not be inconvenienced by small details like no longer being good enough to win it fairly.
 
Revenue is not the same as profit, and the point being that like for like, with a sugar daddy owner, Liverpool would surpass us very quickly. They're a much bigger brand with a much larger fanbase. We're catching them up, but we're not there yet. As a business, right now, yes, we're doing better than them, but as a football club, we're smaller.

We currently have a higher valued brand, but that's not same as brand recognition or size. Liverpool's value is falling due to lack of success, with success, they'd be ahead of us.
Have to disagree with that what with FFP(which was about protecting their entitlement to a top4 spot along with the other Sky4), also saying their owner is FSG is like saying our owner is CFG... try John W. Henry who is a billionaire and can already be considered their sugar daddy, they've also spent plenty... ask Southampton.

What they have over us is a dwindling overseas fanbase(due to a lack of recent success and lack of champions league football) and more silverware from yesteryear, no different to United. No point really talking about ifs or bigging them up, currently we are far better off than them as a club, we are growing fast the revenues should tell you that on their own.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.