Liverpool FC Forum

by **Greavesie** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:19 am

Haway then boys and girls. I heard this on talksport the other day and I've given this quite a bit of thought since, and still I've failed to come to a solution.

I think the topic is fairly relevant given our current ownsership situation, so basically I put it to you:

Would you rather have an owner that treated the club as a play thing or an owner who wanted to make money?

I can see an argument for either to be honest.

An owner that wanted to make a profit would balance the books and put the club in a stable position, so if he did eventually leave, a new owner could take the reigns and handle the club. However it could mean the sacrafice of regular new shirts and an increase of ticket prices. As well as a lack of new signings coming through (at least big names anyway)

A rich owner could easily come in and sign whoever the hell we please and get us the glory. Would it taste as sweet as it did back then? or would it simply be us selling ourselves to the devil in return for trophies? The club wouldn't be in the healthiest position but as long as the owner's there we would be fine and always fighting for the title and getting far in Europe.

There's obviously a lot more pros and cons to each but it's late and I can't be bothered to think of everything

I know in an ideal world we'd want a loaded passionate owner who came along, gave us success and a new stadium.

so I put it to you, which of the two would you rather have? Remember, its totally hypothetical

Please justify your choice

by **Reg** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:42 am

Top clubs dont make a profit. Arsenal you shout, but are they really? Their saving grace has been avoiding expensive players. LFC arent able to do that becuase teh academy was badly run.

Otherwise in the last 10 years Chelsea, LFC, MUFC, Spurs, Villa, leeds, Portsmouth, Bitters... they're not profitable businesses... they're black holes into which ego driven individuals throw money. Abramovich bought respectability, the Yanks thought they'd bought a leverage opportunity, Arsenal, Spurs and others have all recently changed hands. At no time do football club owners take money out of the business - there isnt any.

T&T can balance the books, juggle the numbers then spin the accounts on the end of their dicks but they wont ever look good. LFC needs a benefactor to throw 2-300 million of new cash on the table for the stadium plus a transfer kitty without asking too many questions about the payback period.

Thats the problem with english football at the moment, its not sustainable with the likes of Gerrard on 140 thou a week.

by **Number 9** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:26 am

I would rather have an owner that loved the club,cared about its History,its fans and its reputation as well as its financial situation and place in the League!

Its a shi'te question really(no offence Greavsie,I know your a pup)!

It highlights the fact that football is no longer about the club and pride..the closer we step to ££££ domination the weaker football as we know it becomes! Very sad!!

Perhaps that is why the board is quiet..maybe folk are starting to loose interest?

by **Madmax** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:39 am

Its the money that will make the difference and take us to the next level so i'd rather have a rich owner who will gives us tons to spend. Someone who will tickle your b@lls with the buys we could even dream of!

by **Penguins** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:00 am

I fail to why there can't be a middle way.

A rich owner that loves the sport, the tradition.

An owner that sees long term and is willing to invest in a new stadium and buy most of the club without putting in debt and jeopardising its future.
An owner that understands that if you're looking for a quick buck Football is not the business you should be in!
An owner that doesn't take money out of the club but lets' CL money, TV money be invested back into the team.

And then when the stadium is built and the club has no interest payments there will be money in aboundance.

What we have is neither of the 3 choices.
They aren't plaything owners, there sure as hell isn't treating it as a business and they definatly doesn't look long term.
More like a stock in their market portfolio where they are trying to talk up the product and sell at the right time....

by **Penguins** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:03 am

We just have to have new owners to win things simple as.
It won't matter if Jesus, Allah or God himself is manager at this club if he will get jack all to spend.

I feel sorry for the new manager in a few years if the owners are still here. No stadium, no transfer kitty and fans asking for his head for failing to win the league...

by **bigmick** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:00 am

Penguins wrote:fans asking for his head for failing to win the league...

Only idiots do that. Most rational people only ask for a challenge which is in proportion to the amount of time given and the amount of money spent. They might also include in that proportional equation whether or not the manager has the services of a World Class local player without need of a transfer fee as well, but few I think call for any managers head simply because he doesn't win the league.

I know some people on here like to pretend that people say "win the league or you're out", but very few if any people say that in actuality.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:55 am

Penguins wrote:I fail to why there can't be a middle way.

Yin and yang, the middle way...this thread's getting quite mystical!

by **Judge** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:00 am

bigmick wrote:I know some people on here like to pretend that people say "win the league or you're out", but very few if any people say that in actuality.

win the league or get out

by **bigmick** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:09 am

Judge wrote:
bigmick wrote:I know some people on here like to pretend that people say "win the league or you're out", but very few if any people say that in actuality.

win the league or get out

Ok Ok feck off Judge your on form tonight obviously

by **Greavesie** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:26 am

Number 9 wrote:I would rather have an owner that loved the club,cared about its History,its fans and its reputation as well as its financial situation and place in the League!

Its a shi'te question really(no offence Greavsie,I know your a pup)!

It highlights the fact that football is no longer about the club and pride..the closer we step to ££££ domination the weaker football as we know it becomes! Very sad!!

Perhaps that is why the board is quiet..maybe folk are starting to loose interest?

I agree Baz it is a sh!te question. People need to get talking around here tho :laugh:

I otally agree with what you've said tho but like you said it's all about domination financially and til then there's not a lot that can be done. Very sad situation indeed

by **Judge** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:34 am

bigmick wrote:
Judge wrote:
bigmick wrote:I know some people on here like to pretend that people say "win the league or you're out", but very few if any people say that in actuality.

win the league or get out

Ok Ok feck off Judge your on form tonight obviously

its the day here mick

by **Reg** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:42 pm

Madmax wrote:Its the money that will make the difference and take us to the next level so i'd rather have a rich owner who will gives us tons to spend. Someone who will tickle your b@lls with the buys we could even dream of!

Yeah but the fact is put money into the club but realistically not expect to make a return on it.

Can you think of anyone whose made money owning a footy club? Geordie Ashley might be a hint.

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:53 pm

I would quite happily go back to how things were under Moores. At least then I never worried about the clubs survival, tbh I never even thought about it. Yes I would have liked more big signings, but I used to put that down to lack of CL football and our lack of success generally rather than blaming the owner. I presumed once we got regular CL football the signings would come followed by a period of dominance again once we got the ball rolling.

I was certainly a happier, more patient and optimistic supporter before we were taken over. I would settle now for owners who tried to do what was best for the club, built a new stadium or even just extended Anfield, with a sound business plan that didn't entail massive debt and spent just enough on transfers to keep us in with a decent chance of titles. If the owner managed to do that and made a profit .....good luck to him. I wouldn't mind a few years of heavy spending on transfers either if it was possible, but I would settle for no debt a new stadium and our future assured.

by **hello_red** » Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:23 pm

I would like first of all a new stadium, this is the top priority (bigger in my opinion than winning the league) because although expensive it will balance us out long term with the added revenue and marketing appeal.

But also I would like our marketing team to get there act together we are a club with a massive history, some of the best names in football and a tourist attarction of a stadium and I feel we do not use this to our advantage enough in appealing to players, business and new supporters. Tours of the far east are all well and good but we do not pull the trigger when we should. But the marketing also brings up the new stadium, if the two where to happen we would be so :censored:

big its untrue!!!!

Liverpool FC Forum

Ying and yang - The better of two evils...

Who is online