Liverpool's owners

[Rook]

There is a few differences between the Red Sox and Liverpool. The Red Sox are very very profitable and if/when they want a new stadium they'll get one tax payer paid. Plus the value of the Red Sox increases every year. Expect Liverpool to hover around Spurs in money territory. They need a sugar daddy to Abromivize them to be really good again

Plus have you seen that team? One world class player who plays every week: Reina. The other 2 are constantly knackered and all 3 might be moving. At Fulham Roy arguably had a better squad. I actually think he's doing a good job, some players like Lucas and Maxi are playing better under Roy. Granted the job has turned him a little bat---- crazy but crazy is etched in the shirt so that would happen to anyone. Meanwhile Rafael with the treble winners has about as many points as Liverpool. God I hope they bring sexy back.

 

[davideinstein]

This is what amuses me: the belief that there's a magic formula out there that can get you out of the need to constantly throw millions at squad strengthening. Of course, we in our position would love it to be so. Moyes brought a bit of common sense to the buying and selling of players when he arrived 8 years ago - evaluating what he can get performance-wise from targetted spending + factoring in their sell on value. Unfortunately, it's got us nowhere in the end as a competitive organisation. You just build up, and make a virtue out of, a culture of make do and mend. Liverpool are a different proposition who can supplement that approach with some grandstand signings from the NESV wallet. Even so, that route will still see them miles off the pace of the elite they've fallen out of.

Yeah, because Everton is currently like the Oakland A's. The system got moved from there under Billy Beane to the Red Sox where they had more money (like Liverpool) and they started winning. And it's not some magic formula. It's having an actual basis for why you're spending the money you are instead of just throwing out money on factless observations.

 

[davek]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/?p=100014576&preview=true

With the detail of the Liverpool takeover now revealed, it looks like the pieces are in place for 'Hicks and Gillett revisited' sometime down the line. Split ownership between two men and the facility in place to borrow against the club's assets (Anfield and Melwood) to get the new stadium built and and to borrow for the day to day running of the club.

I wouldn't trust that lot with a piggy bank.

 

[johnnydawg68]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/?p=100014576&preview=true

With the detail of the Liverpool takeover now revealed, it looks like the pieces are in place for 'Hicks and Gillett revisited' sometime down the line. Split ownership between two men and the facility in place to borrow against the club's assets (Anfield and Melwood) to get the new stadium built and and to borrow for the day to day running of the club.

I wouldn't trust that lot with a piggy bank.

Borrowing to build a new stadium that creates new (increased) revenues is not a bad idea. It's actually a good idea. Borrowing to fund operating expenses is absolute disaster.

 

[davek]

Borrowing to build a new stadium that creates new (increased) revenues is not a bad idea. It's actually a good idea. Borrowing to fund operating expenses is absolute disaster.

It'll take a long, long time to pay back. Arsenal built the Emirates with naming rights cash and the sale of their old ground site (£100M) and issuing high interest bonds that'll be paid off by the club for the next 25 years. Liverpool have no value to speak of from Anfield (in fact I think it's donated as a quid pro quo deal with the city council to replace greespace they take up in Stanley Park).

If Liverpool fans think they'll get a stadium gratis out of this they need their heads feeling.