• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

The Owners

C

Caradoc

Guest
FSG still have the option to sell a minority of shares in the club to raise/inject new funding. There’s a long way to go yet before FSG max out. Looking for minority share ownership partners with strong links to global regions where there are significant emerging commercial market opportunities and potential revenue streams from so-far largely untapped football followers and sponsors is a pretty shrewd approach.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,254
It's his uncle mate, not his cousin.
In the convoluted world of the Abu Dhabi royal family, each Emir with multiple wives, Sheik Khaled's father (Sultan bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan) is half brother to Sheik Monsour, which by my reckoning makes Sheik Khaled, the half nephew of Sheik Monsour, and not his uncle. :think:
 

Irishanfield

Internet Terrorist
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
4,737
Yes, I think there could well be something in this which many including myself overlooked. It's clear the source isnt from Liverpool and the timing is strange. If the deal was knocked back last January, you'd expect disclosure not long after that. Instead, we've strengthened the team and started pre season and the league effectively.

What better way to de stabilise the club than to leaks thse details of a failed bid. Everyone knows there is a sizeable faction of LFC fans who want rid of FSG. On another forum, someone posted they didnt care Mansour's mob has an appalling Human Rights record, all they wanted was mega money spent on the team so we could compete with City. Well, I dont subscribe to the view on dismissing Human Rights just so long as your club is successful.

It is a tired cliche but we really must be careful what we wish for. FSG may piss off some people all the time but another Hicks & Gillet ownership would piss off a lot more people.

I like the fact that FSG are making the club self sufficient. I detest everything about mega wealthy owners who come in and steal a football club from its fanbase and community. I desparately want Liverpool to win the title, more so than any Champions League win or domestic cup double. Id happily forego winning the CL in the next 10 years if we could be Champions of England 2 or 3 times in that same period (others may disagree and they are entitled to that view). I used to go to Anfield and the discussion wasnt whether we'd win the title but who'd finish second to us. That's now a dim and distant memory.



Yes, some good points. Unfortunately, too many people read the headline £2bn and all rationale goes out the window, the man must be mega rich to talk of such numbers. One only has to think Derek Whyte, the man who 'proved' to the then Rangers owner he had to money to buy Rangers and take the club forward. Only he didnt have the money and was using a loan based on future Season Ticket income to pull the scam.
Could you post me a link to the thread on that forum where the lad said he didn't care about mansour's human rights issues .
 

Iluvatar

Allez (x6)
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
8,119
FSG still have the option to sell a minority of shares in the club to raise/inject new funding. There’s a long way to go yet before FSG max out. Looking for minority share ownership partners with strong links to global regions where there are significant emerging commercial market opportunities and potential revenue streams from so-far largely untapped football followers and sponsors is a pretty shrewd approach.
I saw a good way of looking at it, if they sold 15% for £300mil they'd basically own 85% of a £2bil asset for zero outlay.
 

Chewbazza

True Believer
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,525
Ultimately I don't think it matters who we want as owners, if FSG had decided to sell then there wouldn't be a lot we could do about it.

That they haven't, does seem to suggest that they never were in it just for money. Saying no to £2bn on a £300m investment? I don't think we'll get much higher bids than that, so either they decided it was not the right bidder to sell to, or they just don't want to sell.

Either way, it would seem they are the owners we need, even if they are not the owners that some people want.
 

JMac8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
810
Yes they broke the spending records for players in "those positions". Fine, but even then its not the same as when we sold coutinho for over 100++ million or United buying Pogba or PSG buying Mbappe for example. Have we reached that level ?
Yeah because buying Pogba has worked out so well for United hasn’t it..?

Did buying Coutinho help Barca to Champions League final? No that was us remember, the sellers.

Your argument has no basis other than you want to spend for the sake of spending. Our transfers have been spot on and we’re on the up. Just enjoy it!
 

JMac8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
810
Ultimately I don't think it matters who we want as owners, if FSG had decided to sell then there wouldn't be a lot we could do about it.

That they haven't, does seem to suggest that they never were in it just for money. Saying no to £2bn on a £300m investment? I don't think we'll get much higher bids than that, so either they decided it was not the right bidder to sell to, or they just don't want to sell.

Either way, it would seem they are the owners we need, even if they are not the owners that some people want.
Exactly. FSG have brought us Klopp, Salah, Bobby, VVD etc and hope! Anyone wanting to replace them with some human rights abusing dictators needs their head examined
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
I saw a good way of looking at it, if they sold 15% for £300mil they'd basically own 85% of a £2bil asset for zero outlay.
Exactly my point! :well done:

I don’t see FSG relinquishing overall control any time soon but I do see them maximising the club’s potential by bringing in significant minority shareholding and investment. That’s yet another reason why I trust FSG and approve of their ownership model. They will bring success to this club but not if it means selling or selling out the club and its values and traditions. Maybe one day in the future they will move on but we should enjoy what we have now and make the most of it.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,236
Exactly my point! :well done:

I don’t see FSG relinquishing overall control any time soon but I do see them maximising the club’s potential by bringing in significant minority shareholding and investment. That’s yet another reason why I trust FSG and approve of their ownership model. They will bring success to this club but not if it means selling or selling out the club and its values and traditions. Maybe one day in the future they will move on but we should enjoy what we have now and make the most of it.
I will be surprised if they do bring in minority investment. FSG is an odd mix of investment fund and rich man's sporting club. They invest in sporting entities only, their shareholders all have other vehicles to produce good returns. An outside investor into one of their properties alters that dynamic. If they find someone who fits 'the club', they could just as easily add them into FSG proper. If the investor doesn't fit for some reason, that introduces the potential for downstream problems.
 

Foldy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
1,410
As always, with these sorts of ventures, the devil is in the detail. For a start, although Sheik Khaled is allegedly "one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the Gulf states", he does not possess the immense wealth of City's owner Sheik Mansour.

This immediately raises the question of how exactly Khaled proposed to fund the buy-out, and more significantly, how he would continue to fund the development of Liverpool FC.

According to the Daily Mail, the takeover was to have been a joint venture between Sheik Khaled and a minority stake Chinese partner.

The Mail also reported that it had also seen a further document between Bin Zayed International, the Sheik's firm, and Alternative Advisors, a Swiss hedge fund where Sheik Khaled sought help to raise £750m from investors.

So, the takeover consortium would consist of Sheik Khaled, a minority stake Chinese partner, and Alternative Advisors hedge fund.

Without knowing much about the Chinese minority partner it's impossible to gauge their motivation for participating. However, with regard to the Hedge fund, it is in the nature of the beast that it would be looking to generate returns for its investors as well as charging a management fee and taking a cut of any gains generated. So, rather than being a vehicle for additional ongoing investment into Liverpool, the hedge fund would look to take money out, almost from the get go.

The final nail in the coffin, so to speak, was that Khaled was unable to provide the £25m deposit, required as a down payment on the deal, due to be paid by the end of December 2017. That speaks volumes for Khaled's liquid funds / secured availability, or rather, lack of.

In my opinion, we dodged the bullet with this one.
Interesting read that Lowton.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
In the convoluted world of the Abu Dhabi royal family, each Emir with multiple wives, Sheik Khaled's father (Sultan bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan) is half brother to Sheik Monsour, which by my reckoning makes Sheik Khaled, the half nephew of Sheik Monsour, and not his uncle. :think:
Yeah, you're absolutely right, sorry.... got it the other way around, it's nephew and uncle relationship. Mansour is the senior member of the family and Khaled is the nephew. They are not cousins.

Exactly my point! :well done:

I don’t see FSG relinquishing overall control any time soon but I do see them maximising the club’s potential by bringing in significant minority shareholding and investment. That’s yet another reason why I trust FSG and approve of their ownership model. They will bring success to this club but not if it means selling or selling out the club and its values and traditions. Maybe one day in the future they will move on but we should enjoy what we have now and make the most of it.
Unless we're a PLC entity, you can forget an Arab owning minority stake and having no say at the running of the company they invested in. 15% is impossible, and I don't think FSG is willing to share control of the club with an Arab family. Not easy to deal with these group because they do tend to throw money, their state money. Something FSG will have problems doing all the time. Just take a look at PSG and Man City (even though they did sell a 33% stake to the Chinese).
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
I will be surprised if they do bring in minority investment. FSG is an odd mix of investment fund and rich man's sporting club. They invest in sporting entities only, their shareholders all have other vehicles to produce good returns. An outside investor into one of their properties alters that dynamic. If they find someone who fits 'the club', they could just as easily add them into FSG proper. If the investor doesn't fit for some reason, that introduces the potential for downstream problems.

You usually know more about these things than I do but I’m just going by the following:

Details of Liverpool takeover bid revealed as FSG remain open to minority investment

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/details-liverpool-takeover-bid-revealed-15067064
 

SithBaare

From Doubters to Believers
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
2,124
You usually know more about these things than I do but I’m just going by the following:

Details of Liverpool takeover bid revealed as FSG remain open to minority investment

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/details-liverpool-takeover-bid-revealed-15067064
That's simple. Invest and become a minority shareholder. Let us manage the portfolio and your funds. FSG like Arminus says has always been a mixture of an investment fund and a sporting professional organization. They'll manage your investment and provide the returns on time. They just won't let an outside person gain influence into how the club is run
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,236
You usually know more about these things than I do but I’m just going by the following:

Details of Liverpool takeover bid revealed as FSG remain open to minority investment

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/details-liverpool-takeover-bid-revealed-15067064
The rub is in the 'right terms and conditions'. I think they are not completely closing the door, but a transaction like that won't be easy to find, because in the end it is not at all clear what they would need/use a new tranche of capital to achieve. Redeveloping Melwood is just about the only thing I can think of, any stand development is going to be mainly debt-based, and I just don't see them deciding to operate at a loss for anything longer than a season - which given the balance sheet, they could also do with debt.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
14,195

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,254
Yeah, you're absolutely right, sorry.... got it the other way around, it's nephew and uncle relationship. Mansour is the senior member of the family and Khaled is the nephew. They are not cousins.
No need to apologise Ed, it's an easy mistake to make. Sheik Khaled's relationships to other members of his family are even more convoluted. For example he is both (paternal) half nephew and (maternal) first cousin once removed to the current Emir, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan ! :shocked:

Unless we're a PLC entity, you can forget an Arab owning minority stake and having no say at the running of the company they invested in. 15% is impossible, and I don't think FSG is willing to share control of the club with an Arab family. Not easy to deal with these group because they do tend to throw money, their state money. Something FSG will have problems doing all the time. Just take a look at PSG and Man City (even though they did sell a 33% stake to the Chinese).
It is possible for a minority share holder to have a say in the running of a Limited Company; it requires a change to the articles of association.

For example, if the minority share holding is 10% of the authorised and issued share capital, the articles would have to be amended to require that (certain / specified) future changes would require 91% of the issued share capital to be in favour before the proposed change could be implemented i.e. the change would require the support / approval of the minority shareholder.

That said, there would be no way a minority shareholder could increase their stake, or force the majority shareholder to increase its equity stake, without the further approval of the majority shareholder.
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
The rub is in the 'right terms and conditions'. I think they are not completely closing the door, but a transaction like that won't be easy to find, because in the end it is not at all clear what they would need/use a new tranche of capital to achieve. Redeveloping Melwood is just about the only thing I can think of, any stand development is going to be mainly debt-based, and I just don't see them deciding to operate at a loss for anything longer than a season - which given the balance sheet, they could also do with debt.

There has been some talk in The Echo and elsewhere of FSG actively seeking the right minority investment and ideally from somewhere like the Far East. I take your point though and my understanding fits nicely with your observation which is that they are not finding it straightforward finding whatever investment it is that they seek.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
No need to apologise Ed, it's an easy mistake to make. Sheik Khaled's relationships to other members of his family are even more convoluted. For example he is both (paternal) half nephew and (maternal) first cousin once removed to the current Emir, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan ! :shocked:
Yeah same case for Khaled, mother is the aunt to Mansour, but father is half brother of Mansour. Messed up... bloody messed up. The Emirs and Sauds are all marrying each other. Which is why they are all a bit whacky in their head. Happens in Kuwait kingdom too....
 

Billy Biskix

TIA Youth Team
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
2,923
I'm not sure this is an attempt to destabilise the club. If it is then it has gloriously backfired. All seems to be quite good publicity for FSG. Their initial investment is now worth £2 billion, a relative of the City owner can't produce evidence of having a measly £25 million and it's given them a chance to remind everybody that they are seeking a minority investment (and how much it is likely to cost).

FSG won't be going anywhere for years and certainly not while Klopp's here. A genuinely likeable and highly marketable squad of players and the most charismatic manager in world football. Liverpool, not City, are the PL poster boys and that's before we've even won anything. Record profits almost certainly next year but I don't think FSG have even scratched the surface of what this club could potentially generate.
 

RedForever2014

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
3,976
Not sure I'd have trusted a relative of someone who owns a direct competitor. Could end up a point proving exercise that leads to unsound decisions and knee jerk reactions, or it could even be a ploy to take control of us and run us at a disadvantage to City.

Anyone who needed a consortium to be able to afford us clearly wasn't the answer anyway.

You also need transparency. G&H were able to be got at by our support as their various interests were visible, as were the funders of them. FSG would be impacted if the supporters 'rebelled' and this is reassuring.

A consortium comprising faceless parties from states with human rights issues is also not palatable.

Personally, as long as FSG continue on the current trajectory, as long as their strategy is the maximisation of football success and the intention is there to stop selling our best players now that we no longer have to for footballing reasons, I feel they are the better option.
 

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
3,441
Not sure I'd have trusted a relative of someone who owns a direct competitor. Could end up a point proving exercise that leads to unsound decisions and knee jerk reactions, or it could even be a ploy to take control of us and run us at a disadvantage to City.

Anyone who needed a consortium to be able to afford us clearly wasn't the answer anyway.

You also need transparency. G&H were able to be got at by our support as their various interests were visible, as were the funders of them. FSG would be impacted if the supporters 'rebelled' and this is reassuring.

A consortium comprising faceless parties from states with human rights issues is also not palatable.

Personally, as long as FSG continue on the current trajectory, as long as their strategy is the maximisation of football success and the intention is there to stop selling our best players now that we no longer have to for footballing reasons, I feel they are the better option.
Jaysus, where is Redforever and what have you done with him?!
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
Could you post me a link to the thread on that forum where the lad said he didn't care about mansour's human rights issues .
Im not sure if the mods would allow a link to a rival forum?

The poster is called Boss who I think is a bit of a nob in all honesty. Another poster called him out for it so someone has sense.
Posted Today, 04:35 am


I couldn't care less what a football owners human rights record is. There's no morality in football. It's simply a case of who is prepared to go further than anyone else to win.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,236
Im not sure if the mods would allow a link to a rival forum?

The poster is called Boss who I think is a bit of a nob in all honesty. Another poster called him out for it so someone has sense.

General rule - not for purposes of generating/poaching traffic. But in the context of a perfectly legitimate, on-topic discussion, there is no harm in it.
 

Big_Doogs

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
50
My worry when FSG came on board was that they would just throw money at it, spend big on players and leave us in a situation where if they got bored and stopped spending we would be in troubled, big trouble. So I am delighted with them and the approach they have taken.

They rightly focused on getting things right off the pitch. They kept us in the top 4 conversation each season whilst fixing things off the pitch. We were years behind ManU and others as far as the marketing side of things goes, then there was the stadium issue and so on. So many people wanted them to just get on with it and build the new stadium but they took their time and wanted to be sure to get it right. Did anyone really want them to just trust that H&G had done a good job on their due diligence and planning for the Stadium in Stanley Park? Would they really have come up with the best thing for the community and the club? FSG were switched on from day one and knew they had to start again. How right they were and what a great job they have done.

They wanted a director of football model from day one. They had a ton of pressure from the media and the fan base that it was the wrong model, after appointing Comolli. It didn’t help that Torres put in a last minute transfer request that resulted in the panic buy of Andy Carroll. Keeping Torres made no sense as he would have sulked (he already was and £50 was overpayment) but can you imagine the reaction had we not bought Carroll and let Torres go? The outcry about Americans asset stripping would have been deafening. As it was there was still plenty of such criticism at the time, over there being a net profit as Suarez was already done). The grief they got over the Henderson signing/fee didn’t help either, even though it was always a buy with an eye on the future (and what great business it was).

Everyone blamed the model for the squad issues we had at that time, whereas I always felt it was mainly a hangover from the previous regime. That’s when they made their biggest mistake which was doubting themselves and the model they wanted. So we ended up with the Transfer committee. They rightly knew you couldn’t give managers free reign with the cheque book, but the halfway house approach meant Rogers had no accountability for his role in recruiting and he clearly allowed his personal views to affect team selection when the committee overruled him (not playing Firmino for example). But they learned.

They now have a model that works both for the club and the manager, if I am honest I am not 100% certain how it works behind the scenes but everyone is on the same page. I think we have the model spot on though in that we are making sure all parties are comfortable with things. That then needs to be right at the top of the list of attributes for a new manager, making sure he works in a way that the club is 100% happy with.

So despite all the stuff on the pitch not moving as fast as we wanted, off the pitch massive strides were made. I won’t rehash it all, but off the pitch the club is sustainable on its own. If FSG stopped spending the club would still be fine and could remain competitive. It is now a great asset and potential investment for someone. If FSG decided to get out, we would have options and time. We no won’t be in the situation again where we are begging for a buyer to save us. It is absolutely correct that they got that side off things sorted first.

On the pitch though Klopp has quietly built a strong foundation. The academy is better stocked and there is a clear path through to the first team. We are now in a position where we only needs a small number of players in each window, going forward. Most signing can now be signings to fill one of two spots and make the first 11 stronger. We are mow no longer paying out 10 million here and there for players to fill out the squad. It takes time to build that base which is why they sought to spread out the Suarez money, signing another marquee player would not have helped us long term. Granted we wasted some of that money, but the approach was correct. You cannot sign 10 players in one go and expect to build the depth and culture you want. Both FSG (as the same applies to any team sport) and Klopp get that. Klopp has first built the depth and most importantly the culture. New signings now will fit in with the cultured that is already here. That’s why signing Shaqiri never worried me, he would just want to fit in with what he can see is a healthy culture. We could not have signed him 3 years ago. It is now a situation where marquee signings make absolute sense.

FSG and Klopp are a great partnership, but first and foremost it is FSG that I am delighted with. Klopp rightly gets the plaudits but FSG have given him the environment he needed to build this side. He hasn’t been put under unrealistic pressure at any time, even when we missed out on the top 4. So many clubs would have fired him at that point.

FSG are great owners and I genuinely believe they are in it for the long haul.
 
C

Caradoc

Guest
My worry when FSG came on board was that they would just throw money at it, spend big on players and leave us in a situation where if they got bored and stopped spending we would be in troubled, big trouble. So I am delighted with them and the approach they have taken.

They rightly focused on getting things right off the pitch. They kept us in the top 4 conversation each season whilst fixing things off the pitch. We were years behind ManU and others as far as the marketing side of things goes, then there was the stadium issue and so on. So many people wanted them to just get on with it and build the new stadium but they took their time and wanted to be sure to get it right. Did anyone really want them to just trust that H&G had done a good job on their due diligence and planning for the Stadium in Stanley Park? Would they really have come up with the best thing for the community and the club? FSG were switched on from day one and knew they had to start again. How right they were and what a great job they have done.

They wanted a director of football model from day one. They had a ton of pressure from the media and the fan base that it was the wrong model, after appointing Comolli. It didn’t help that Torres put in a last minute transfer request that resulted in the panic buy of Andy Carroll. Keeping Torres made no sense as he would have sulked (he already was and £50 was overpayment) but can you imagine the reaction had we not bought Carroll and let Torres go? The outcry about Americans asset stripping would have been deafening. As it was there was still plenty of such criticism at the time, over there being a net profit as Suarez was already done). The grief they got over the Henderson signing/fee didn’t help either, even though it was always a buy with an eye on the future (and what great business it was).

Everyone blamed the model for the squad issues we had at that time, whereas I always felt it was mainly a hangover from the previous regime. That’s when they made their biggest mistake which was doubting themselves and the model they wanted. So we ended up with the Transfer committee. They rightly knew you couldn’t give managers free reign with the cheque book, but the halfway house approach meant Rogers had no accountability for his role in recruiting and he clearly allowed his personal views to affect team selection when the committee overruled him (not playing Firmino for example). But they learned.

They now have a model that works both for the club and the manager, if I am honest I am not 100% certain how it works behind the scenes but everyone is on the same page. I think we have the model spot on though in that we are making sure all parties are comfortable with things. That then needs to be right at the top of the list of attributes for a new manager, making sure he works in a way that the club is 100% happy with.

So despite all the stuff on the pitch not moving as fast as we wanted, off the pitch massive strides were made. I won’t rehash it all, but off the pitch the club is sustainable on its own. If FSG stopped spending the club would still be fine and could remain competitive. It is now a great asset and potential investment for someone. If FSG decided to get out, we would have options and time. We no won’t be in the situation again where we are begging for a buyer to save us. It is absolutely correct that they got that side off things sorted first.

On the pitch though Klopp has quietly built a strong foundation. The academy is better stocked and there is a clear path through to the first team. We are now in a position where we only needs a small number of players in each window, going forward. Most signing can now be signings to fill one of two spots and make the first 11 stronger. We are mow no longer paying out 10 million here and there for players to fill out the squad. It takes time to build that base which is why they sought to spread out the Suarez money, signing another marquee player would not have helped us long term. Granted we wasted some of that money, but the approach was correct. You cannot sign 10 players in one go and expect to build the depth and culture you want. Both FSG (as the same applies to any team sport) and Klopp get that. Klopp has first built the depth and most importantly the culture. New signings now will fit in with the cultured that is already here. That’s why signing Shaqiri never worried me, he would just want to fit in with what he can see is a healthy culture. We could not have signed him 3 years ago. It is now a situation where marquee signings make absolute sense.

FSG and Klopp are a great partnership, but first and foremost it is FSG that I am delighted with. Klopp rightly gets the plaudits but FSG have given him the environment he needed to build this side. He hasn’t been put under unrealistic pressure at any time, even when we missed out on the top 4. So many clubs would have fired him at that point.

FSG are great owners and I genuinely believe they are in it for the long haul.

That’s a really good post. I enjoyed reading that! :well done:
 

indianscouser

Anything But Normal
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
12,933
I still remember the dark days, prior to take over there were talks about points being deducted and us going into administration and shit.
We had hit bottom. No direction, H&G gave rafa a bone dry budget, sacked him, Appointment a clueless Roy, and we were flirting with relegation for the first 7 games if memory serves me correct.
Then in December, i remember being hooked on to every fucking podcast, linking us with Middle east take over, Chinese, heck even the richest man from my country was linked with it.
Finally, FSG took over. Was very skeptical at first. Not knowing want to expect, we had no direction, our best players wanted out. Torres left. But we are lucky to have in great players in Gerrard, Carragher, Kuyt,Agger who stood by us. In came the King to stabilize the boat. We liverpool fans have a lot to thank those players, they could have walked on to any of the biggest club in europe at that time. They choose to be here and that is something we should never forget.
We signed one of our best players of this decade (Think Salah will beat him though) in Suarez. We then had a decent manager in Rodgers. All these were learning phase not only for our club, but also for FSG. They have understood that Liverpool is a special club, and have acted in a very professional way to address stadium expansion, had the long term vision to appoint klopp. Never shied to spend big on the correct players.
This is 8+ years of though and investment done carefully.
I can't think of where we would have been had FSG not taken over.
Yes, they do have minor problems, but that is nothing compared to the vision and strategy they have for this club.
I hope our owner continue doing the good work, keep their feet grounded, be humble and take us to the top of world football, the Liverpool Way.
Credit where its due, Well don FSG.
YNWA
 

Quagmire81

TIA Regular
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
6,806
Yeah same case for Khaled, mother is the aunt to Mansour, but father is half brother of Mansour. Messed up... bloody messed up. The Emirs and Sauds are all marrying each other. Which is why they are all a bit whacky in their head. Happens in Kuwait kingdom too....
It's a travesty that these backward inbreeds are allowed to have such a huge influence on the "modern" world, on geographical reasons alone.
 

Big_Doogs

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
50
Yes they broke the spending records for players in "those positions". Fine, but even then its not the same as when we sold coutinho for over 100++ million or United buying Pogba or PSG buying Mbappe for example. Have we reached that level ?
Which is the wrong model. PSG keep making big signings without building an identity and culture first; and sign Neymar and achieve basically nothing by doing so. They now have someone that thinks he is bigger than the club and only makes the club culture worse. PSG are worse for it, so are Utd with Pogba.