ROB GUTMANN, Jay McKenna, Jonathan Northcroft of The Sunday Times and Mike Nevin get robust on the owners in the second of a two-part show on this week’s ‘Unwrapped’.
// TAW SHOP
// TAW APP
// PARTNERS
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROB GUTMANN, Jay McKenna, Jonathan Northcroft of The Sunday Times and Mike Nevin get robust on the owners in the second of a two-part show on this week’s ‘Unwrapped’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we can secure the deal for Bacca then I think this will finally be a transfer window where the transfer comitee have done their jobs properly
Ian aire all will be forgiven
Bacca , Bacca , Bacca , Bacca , Bacca
Despite being introduced as the show where you were going to get tough on the owners, this actually felt a bit more balanced that the first part.
There are a couple of points I would pick up on. The discussion about salaries seemed to completely miss the point. The fact that FSG have reduced the percentage of revenue spent on salaries is wholly a good thing. This does not show FSG having no ambition to compete (or wanting profit) it shows them getting the finances in order after years of mismanagement. The reason the top 4 out spend us on salaries, is that they can afford to because they have larger revenues. If we can get our revenues up we can pay more.
Jonathan Northcroft thinks JWH’s statement about not being in it for profit was disrespectful. At some point in the near or far distant future when FSG come to sell Liverpool, there will be a profit to be taken, but until then you can’t say that their ownership is about profit. The club hasn’t made a profit, FSG haven’t taken a profit. They have said money will get reinvested and there is no reason to doubt them. Has there ownership of the Red Sox been about profit? Why should you assume their ownership of Liverpool is different.
A year ago no one felt the need for reassurance about FSG’s intentions, or about how they viewed LFC. We had just missed out on the league, FSG had played hard-ball over Suarez and the money was being reinvested in a transfer window that TAW contributors were praising. A poor season and a couple of clear flops from the transfer business and suddenly people worry that FSG have changed their strategic vision for the club. Why? Well perhaps they need to do more to communicate their vision for the club, but there really is no reason to imagine that it has changed. The slackening of FFP controls might make them change their attitude in the future, but the only City are the only owners of the big teams who would welcome the the brakes coming off spending.
Hate to say it guys but the words ‘wool’ (no, not that type) and ‘eyes’ spring to mind. What you’ve described over the last couple of weeks is a PR offensive. FSG have no need to engage with supporters now that their ownership is guaranteed hence the silence. It’s a familiar strategy to anyone who’s been involved in a takeover: sweeten the supporters/customers, promise jam tomorrow, then focus on your primary business (the Red Sox) while quietly churning profit from your secondary or tertiary business.
Having said all that, we’ve had worse owners.
Im at work and I listened to this this morning. There was a few specific points I wanted to make, which of course I’ve forgotten. Anyway, main point being, excellent podcast. I liked a lot of what Jay said. I hope someone from fsg listens…we want to love you (or really really like you), just let us in.