ROB GUTMANN, Jay McKenna, Jonathon Northcroft of The Sunday Times and Mike Nevin get robust on the owners in the first of a two part show on this week’s ‘Unwrapped’.
// FREE PODCASTS
Tottenham 3 Liverpool 6: The Anfield Wrap
The Anfield Wrap’s free podcast looking back at Liverpool’s emphatic win over Tottenham Hotspur on the road to cement the Reds position as Christmas number one.
Neil Atkinson hosts Ian Ryan, Mo Stewart and Ian Salmon.
LFC are offering Festive Freebie Christmas gift ( worth up to £10) for every paying child on the LFC Stadium Tour if they visit from 21st December through to 3rd January. Just quote code XMASGIFT24 at checkout to receive this offer whilst stocks last. For more go to LFC.TV/TOURS
Subscribe to The Anfield Wrap for more reaction to Liverpool’s season, as well as reaction to all the news and events that matter to you…
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
23 December 2024
19 December 2024
Search Results placeholder
// TAW SHOP
// TAW APP
// PARTNERS
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So basically. FSG have done nothing right according to this podcast..
Yet again the foreigner bashing rears its head..Constant references to “out of town fans!”..
Sorry but this is completely biased and devoid of real neutrality…
I didn’t get this at all from this podcast. Specific references were made to the ‘Yanks Out’ line of criticism of the previous owners being unhelpful. The criticisms of FSG are ones of capitalists who lack the specific knowledge of their investment, which might, in this particular instance, be because they are from a culture and time which does not prioritise football. Even Abramovich has been praised on TAW in the past for actually sticking with Chelsea for quite a while now and always investing (/cleaning) the money he has expropriated from Siberian natural gas workers.
Sorry but are we listening to the same thing?
There is a distinct lack of objectivity in the analysis with no real reference to the backdrop uopn which we (Liverpool FC) are operating in.
On the purchase..
Jay McKenna made an absolutely rediculous analogy about the notion of FSG not saving the club.
“Its like buying a house that is worth 250k, adding curtains and changing the deed” or words to that effect.
Sorry?
Hold on,the reality was LFC were on the brink of administration because it could not pay its debts. RBS (against the back drop of a post credit crunch catastophe)
forced the sale of the club because we LFC were unable to pay the terms and conditions of our huge loan interest payments.
Basic financial mis-management..See Greece
FSG bought the club and immediately underwrote the crippling debt so the banks were off our a$$..So yes they saved the club, but according to McKenna it wasnt a “criticism”…
On the pitch.
Only Jonathan Northcroft made real reference to the backdrop when FSG came in.
Liverpool were one of the highest wage players in the league and later on it would be found out that, Lfc also had made the highest payments in agent fees and we were crap.
7/8th best team in the league.. Not to mention the awful players and mad money, we know who they were.
That word comes up again mis-management.
It takes years to undo the madness (which was said) ie get rid of deadwood, bringing a new model of player/ players that we can afford.
Like it or hate it, we are much more financially prudent than we have been for a long time and it makes sense..
The Stadium.
The assumption is that we are only going to build one part of the stadium is clearly set in stone in this podcast. Why?
Based on what information is this a fact?
Also as dicussed on this podcast many a time, ground capacity is no longer the game changer in terms of revenue. TV money and commercial deals are.
Why then should FSG concentrate on massive stadia as now suggested, when it really isnt the priority revenue earnerin the current climate.
Mike Nevin then dismisses FSGs attempt and the stadium upgrade with the following… “A convenient way to maintain the ticket pricing sweetspot!”..
“Furthermore actually attract a “type” transient support that comes twice a season rather than the local support”..
Again this notion that the club support only applies to people who lived in and around Liverpool…
I hate it and it always seems to be a thing on TAW by some panelists.
Liverpool depend on its global influnce to sell is commercial “brand” (want of a better word). Not all LFC lovers/fans/fanatics are lucky enough to live there and come each week
TAW has a world wide audience so why is there always a seemingly them and us undertone by some.
Take foreign money but limit foreign inclusion…
He then further bangs on that 60k seater confirms our place against our competition..Again a off the cuff point with no real depth in analysis or thought.
Dare I ask? Say we build 80 – 100k…Who pays for it?. What is the impact on our debt and our purchasing power on the pitch.
When the point was made by FSG “Why spend 350m for 30-40k more seats!”…Not one of the panel acknowledeged that it was the most financial sense..
That is real analysis. This is the trade off between what we need compared to what we want.That went straight over their head.
The fact is LFC are paying for dithering on the stadium decision for decades, while others forged ahead with action in whatever form or fashion.
See Arsenal (relocation) United (stadium upgrades). Again the word mis-management interms of vision.
FSG are finally actually making a step. A step that has not been made by Moores era or G&H.
Rename this podcast lets kick FSGs head in..
No real depth, no analysis… no objectivity.
RBS wouldn’t have risked letting the club go under. They were well aware of what happened to Blackstone and certainly were aware of the RBS email campaign threatening a boycott. The threats by the bank were aimed solely at H&G. Wouldn’t have come to administration. Naive to suggest it would. At worst RBS would have acquired it until a buyer could be found. That said, I don’t disagree with much of what you say.
Possibly my friend but that is pure speculation based on gutfeel..
Having said that I know that was the same approach that Lehman Brothers took. Ie sitting there in debt waiting for a fed bailout….that never came…Game Over..
LFC has been mis-managed for years…years…cleaning up the crap has been long overdue…FSG are doing those hard yards…Quite rightly so…
I totally agree Liverpool were in a mess mate and there’s nothing sinister about FSG. I was all in favour of them. My interpretation was they were going to get the club back on its feet and sustainable going forward. I think they’ve achieved that very well. Jonathan hit the nail on the head with the term – prudent. That sums up their philosophy of the first 5 years brilliantly. It was needed too.
The ultimate plan though is to make Liverpool successful so we, the fans, have a great time and they make loads of money. Sounds great to me. Their successors would have to be pretty well off too. The problem for me is I work with venture capitalists and the reason they’ve been able to achieve the first part so well is because venture capitalism has a known set of rules to apply. Whatever the business they always stop the rot.
The next stage it to make us successful. I agree with the pod people that they don’t know how they’re going to achieve that. They had a plan that sounded good. Buy players early, sometimes at higher prices so when they mature you have £30m players (and then you can sell them, haha). It appears to be falling apart though. I’ve got faith in them to re-evaluate the landscape and perhaps find a new route to success. Problem is, I’m now in the camp that thinks they’re losing interest or/and don’t know how and we’ll stay prudent until the stadium is finished and they sell up. Pure speculation but I think there are snippets of information around that when collated point that way.
I think they’ve found it harder than they thought. As a kid I didn’t do dangerous activities. Not long ago the local kids egged me to jump off a ramp. Not one to shirk a challenge, I nailed it like a pro. So, they said I bet you can’t do that one. No one can. My confidence was sky high from the first ramp. Anyway, it turned out to be the only time I’ve been taken away in an ambulance. Bed bound for weeks and drinking food through a straw because I couldn’t sit upright. You get my point mate. Red Sox and all that.
The juries still out for me but this summer felt like the most pivotal in years. It was (and still is) about what players we bought. I feel sick to the stomach about what I’m seeing so far. I’m absolutely gutted. It’s not all their fault or the fault of the structures they’ve put in place though. I feel equally convinced that Liverpool is not an attractive destination for foreign players anymore.
I wouldn’t blame them if they did sell up early, though I think they’ll sit out the next 5 years with prudence. Our fans are a disgrace. The amount of abuse I’ve seen directed at them on Twitter is shocking. Everyday there’s sexual references aimed at Linda. I just don’t think Red Sox fans would do that. They must think we’re all a bunch of retards and in fairness they probably wouldn’t be far wrong.
Oh dear…. I think some of this is already losing touch with a reality based on a realistic expectations and next week you are going to really get tough on the owners!
On the stadium, where does anyone get the idea that at a new 60,000 or 75,000 seat stadium could be built without seriously hitting the clubs finances. We have the chance to get a 60,000 seater for 150m without impacting the finances of the club. Set aside ManU for a minute and that is in line with that of rivals for top 4.
If you want to get in to some sort of pi**ing contest with ManU, it is going to cost 300m on top of that to get to 75,000. That would negatively impact on the performance on the pitch for years. Would that be a price worth paying? Well, if you also want ticket prices reduced that extra capacity will never pay for itself and will never bring the benefit of extra match day revenue. Still at least there will be the consolation prize of having the biggest stadium in the league as you sit high above the pitch in a 2/3 full ground watching Liverpool struggle in the Europa League.
It seems to have become a thing now where people (including contributors to TAW) say as almost as a fact that FSG will not develop Anfield Road. This could end up being the case, and FSG have been careful not to promise anything, but there is no evidence that this is their intention. They have been at pains all through the process of planning the development to only make commitments when everything has been lined up to make sure they can follow through on that commitment. It has also become a thing where people say FSG are going to sell once the Main Stand development is complete. Again there is no evidence for this, and every indication that FSG take a long term view.
Much is made of the fact that Henry does not attend Anfield regularly and that he is somehow losing interest in the club. If you think a man like Henry operates like a child bored of his new toy and that he can afford to just neglect an asset that has such a large value to him and the other owners, you are very much mistaken. FSG appear to have made Mike Gordon there point man for Liverpool. He reportedly has the second largest stake of the ownership group, behind Henry, so he has a very clear motivation to see Liverpool do well. He might not be sitting in the stand every home game, but that doesn’t mean he is not involved.
The whole “FSG saved the club” thing is over played, but people need to bare in mind that there were not other credible offers on the table at the time. Jim Boardman is fond of stirring the pot, and tweeting about other higher offers. That offer was Mill Financial a hedge fund which was owed $70m by Gillet, that was secured against LFC ownership rights. The LFC did absolutely the right thing in dismissing that offer in favour of FSG. People might feel that FSG got Liverpool for a good price, but if they had paid any more that would have just made it in to the pockets of Hicks and Gillet, or their other creditors. None of it would have been available to benefit the club.
I have been a glass half full person since FSG took over and I have been impressed with their stewardship of the club. They have made mistakes, but they tend to learn from the mistakes and act to correct them.
If you don’t like FSG, look around the Premiership and which other club’s owners would you rather have over FSG? Would you rather be owned by an Arab state, or a Russian oligarch? (If your answer to this is yes then you need to have a good look at your priorities). Perhaps you prefer one of the other groups of American owners, the Glaziers are great aren’t they? What about avoiding foreign ownership altogether, some Brits brought up on football (Mike Ashley anyone? Or maybe some a couple of east end porn barons?) Perhaps you envy Spurs and would like someone who made his fortune betting against pound ahead of Black Wednesday and now protects that fortune by living as a tax exile? If you don’t fancy any of them, there is a Nigerian billionaire keen to by a PL club. Perhaps he could be persuaded?
Good post, and fair comment. I have no problem with our owners, but would like them to have sought advice from more sages. Hansen once famously said – to ridicule – that you won’t win anything with kids, but he was more or less right. Still less likely is winning anything with kids who you immediately shunt out on loan. Buying Milner was a good move but likely prompted more by Gerrard going than addressing a perceived flaw in tecruitment policy.