The Friedkin Group - Dan & Ryan Friedkin

What do we reckon?

  • 👍

    Votes: 583 67.9%

  • 🤷 | 🧀🥪

    Votes: 240 27.9%

  • 👎

    Votes: 36 4.2%
  • Total voters
    859
Groucho said:
Liverpool are own by a fella who also owns a baseball team and there’s no issue there, I’m not saying it’s never mentioned but they haven’t turned into the Anfield Red Sox.

We are not, nor ever will be, Roma B.

Don’t forget we’ve been here before - Peter Johnson owned us and Tranmere at the same time until he was told “OI, YOU, NO” by the FA. We didn’t turn into Tranmere nor vice versa. The thing now is, perhaps we have a better standard of players to tap into from Roma.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if Liverpool were owned by the same organisation that also owned Real Madrid - a club with a larger profile - that'd be the real comparison, not a football club owner that also owned a sporting club from another sport on another continent.
 
davek said:
Yes, but if Liverpool were owned by the same organisation that also owned Real Madrid - a club with a larger profile - that'd be the real comparison, not a football club owner that also owned a sporting club from another sport on another continent.
Click to expand...
True, however I wouldn’t say Roma were bigger than us.
 

Groucho said:
True, however I wouldn’t say Roma were bigger than us.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't historically speaking.

But these days they overshadow us and we'll be caught up in their world not the other way around.

The perception elsewhere will be that we're the poor relations.
 
davek said:
No, I wouldn't historically speaking.

But these days they overshadow us and we'll be caught up in their world not the other way around.

The perception elsewhere will be that we're the poor relations.
Click to expand...

The perception outside of our fanbase is that we would be the poor relations to lots of clubs, in a multi club model.
So what.
Lots of clubs overshadow us now in different ways.
Fixing the club by any means necessary has to be the ambition, would this takeover be a first pick, probably not, but would it be better thanwhat we have now, probably.
 
davek said:
No, I wouldn't historically speaking.

But these days they overshadow us and we'll be caught up in their world not the other way around.

The perception elsewhere will be that we're the poor relations.
Click to expand...
Perhaps then it’s time to change that? We are clearly the last of the historic large clubs to be picked up by a conglomeration - I’m not counting the outgoing “accountant” as Bill Kenwright still exercised control. .

I have to agree, I’m not a fan of multi-club stables but as I mentioned the other day, for me it’s far preferable to being owned by a tyrannical state.

I don’t think we’ll be overshadowed or even associated with Roma, personally. We are a totally separate entity.
 

PKwalnuts said:
The perception outside of our fanbase is that we would be the poor relations to lots of clubs, in a multi club model.
So what.
Lots of clubs overshadow us now in different ways.
Fixing the club by any means necessary has to be the ambition, would this takeover be a first pick, probably not, but would it be better thanwhat we have now, probably.
Click to expand...
Not at the expense of our identity.

When or if this takeover happens we want some clear distance between us and Roma. I fear that won't happen though.
 
Groucho said:
Perhaps then it’s time to change that? We are clearly the last of the historic large clubs to be picked up by a conglomeration - I’m not counting the outgoing “accountant” as Bill Kenwright still exercised control. .

I have to agree, I’m not a fan of multi-club stables but as I mentioned the other day, for me it’s far preferable to being owned by a tyrannical state.

I don’t think we’ll be overshadowed or even associated with Roma, personally. We are a totally separate entity.
Click to expand...
Every transaction that they do and we do will be compared; every one of their successes and our losses will be drawn attention to.

The association will be a cause for a lot of tension from our end of things, Ilm pretty sure of that. It'll be toxic if they're bringing in players, for example, and we're not.

We could have and should have done better than Friedkin. But Moshiri will get the best deal for him, not us.
 
davek said:
Every transaction that they do and we do will be compared; every one of their successes and our losses will be drawn attention to.

The association will be a cause for a lot of tension from our end of things, Ilm pretty sure of that. It'll be toxic if they're bringing in players, for example, and we're not.

We could have and should have done better than Friedkin. But Moshiri will get the best deal for him, not us.
Click to expand...
Honestly Dave, only by you, nobody else really cares about Roma.
 
davek said:
Every transaction that they do and we do will be compared; every one of their successes and our losses will be drawn attention to.

The association will be a cause for a lot of tension from our end of things, Ilm pretty sure of that. It'll be toxic if they're bringing in players, for example, and we're not.

We could have and should have done better than Friedkin. But Moshiri will get the best deal for him, not us.
Click to expand...
Friedkin will actually put his hand in money wise and not go cap in hand to lenders like Moshiri did for the past 2/3 years and Bell and Downing were planning to do
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top