Would You Allow A Middle Eastern Group To Buy Liverpool

Liverpool Football Club - General Discussion

Would You Allow A Middle Eastern Group To Buy Liverpool

Poll ended at Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:47 am

Yes
12
40%
No
16
53%
Unsure
2
7%
 
Total votes : 30

Postby killerp » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:47 am

Rumor's flying around the net that Arsenal may be the subject of a 1.5 billion pound take over by some middle eastern group, carbon copy of Man City.

My question is what would we do in that position right now? It's not like we have terrible owners now but I'm sure there are those who are tired of waiting to win the league & would jump at the opportunity to do a Man City here, financial fair or not.

Just think about it, deep pockets, new stadium, world class players, shifty sponsors to exploit loop holes in FFP.  :devil:

I certainly wouldn't might seeing some world class signings flowing into the club but I would still say no. It would feel like we are buying success rather than really earning it. I'd like to think if we develop the current team & add a few class players they will be good enough to challenge.
User avatar
killerp
 
Posts: 1454
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Australia

Postby Reg » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:43 am

Very good question mate. One thing is for sure - you can't have too much money. On the other hand is the moral question of whether we would feel comfortable selling our souls to people who look upon us as a toy, or status symbol. What price love....? Would you surrender our ownership in exchange for a new stadium which we'll still have after they've lost interest and moved on? Maybe.

No one would object to Aguerro, Ronaldo or Juan Flashybollocks coming to Anfield but debt level would spiral and the wage bill would dominate the balance sheet leaving us exposed the day they walk away. Man Utd's debt of some GBP750 million swings round their neck - it feels lighter now when they're winning cups however the day the bubble burst what took 10 years to build up will take 30 years to pay off.

So the question is a balance of benefit  - stadium, flashy players, against the knowledge it could come back in our faces and the fact we would effectively become the next plastic flag brigade.   

We value Suarez and the other lads because we're all part of the same group trying to lift our club up again, take away that bond because of easy money and what do we stand for? Whilst it would be nice, we don't need arab money to get us back on top, but it will take longer for sure.

What makes Arsenal more attractive is their low debt level and their new stadium. Man Utd in comparison have the stadium and the debt and we have no debt and no stadium - a blank piece of paper. These guys want to play with their toy from day one hence we remain unattractive. At Arsenal they put money into the club and see results, at Man Utd they put money in simply to reduce the debt. With us, put money in and go sit in a building site for 3 years....Not.
User avatar
Reg
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 13708
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Singapore

Postby devaney » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:07 am

Just look at Man City as an example. They win the title literally at the very last second having spent £500m. Yes I was running around like a dog with two di.cks but just look at the state of them this year and their attitude. Do those ridiculously well paid prima donnas really give a fk? United are probably going to win the title by close on twenty points and that is because they have a winning attitude and it loathes me to admit it. (shower of horrible kunts !!) It is not just all about money !! Give me Anfield and it's history against anything City or Chelsea have to offer any day of the week!
Net Spend Over The Last 5 Years (10 years
are in brackets)
LFC £300m (£420m)
Everton +£33m (£211m)
Arsenal £557m (£853m)
Spurs £545m (£657m)
Chelsea £966m (£1072m)
Man City £165m (£833m)
Man United £650m (£1204m)
devaney
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 5132
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Liverpool

Postby only me » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:27 pm

A good friend of mine is a City fan and I can tell you with all of last year glory ,his joy and happiness was never their ,he felt his team success was "bought" and not earned.

I have to agree that having a sugar daddy with endless pockets is destroying the game and would have to object whether it's a ME oil guzzling sheik or a Russian Billionaire. The old way is the only way for me.
only me
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:00 pm
Location: Jerusalem

Postby babu » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:30 pm

Lads, the question is deep pockets and a penchant to spend and keep spending, not where they are from.

for me the answer is yes, I would love an owner(s) with deep pockets, but not at the expense of the club's traditions (this is a little moot now after twit & ***** destroyed them).

Certain principles need to be upheld and conditional upon sale, safeguards in effect. These are possible is written into the overall charter of the club.

Mind you, this would be a deal breaker for most mega rich.
Image



                                   *    *    *    *    *
User avatar
babu
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 3826
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Malaysia

Postby Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:44 pm

only me » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:27 pm wrote:A good friend of mine is a City fan and I can tell you with all of last year glory ,his joy and happiness was never their ,he felt his team success was "bought" and not earned.

I have to agree that having a sugar daddy with endless pockets is destroying the game and would have to object whether it's a ME oil guzzling sheik or a Russian Billionaire. The old way is the only way for me.


Some how I don't really believe that

You only have to look on the faces of the fans when Aguero scored to see they didnt give a Sh*t when the money came from - they won the title
Benny The Noon
 

Postby only me » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:59 pm

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:44 pm wrote:
only me » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:27 pm wrote:A good friend of mine is a City fan and I can tell you with all of last year glory ,his joy and happiness was never their ,he felt his team success was "bought" and not earned.

I have to agree that having a sugar daddy with endless pockets is destroying the game and would have to object whether it's a ME oil guzzling sheik or a Russian Billionaire. The old way is the only way for me.


Some how I don't really believe that

You only have to look on the faces of the fans when Aguero scored to see they didnt give a Sh*t when the money came from - they won the title


So don't.

I didn't claim he wasn't happy when City wins or scores ,that's an instinct for every fan. But when all is said and done he agreed that it wasn't the way he wanted to win.
only me
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 5172
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:00 pm
Location: Jerusalem

Postby Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:42 pm

So his joy and happiness were there - he just didnt like to win that way. Well it's the only way to win now.
Benny The Noon
 

Postby devaney » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:13 pm

Money is not the only way. Look at the recent cup final between Bradford and Swansea as an example. They hardly have a pot to pi.ss in between them !! Look at Swansea's league position. You will also find that United's net spend in the transfer market over the last 10 years has been considerably less than Liverpool's.

This link demonstrates that money is not the simple answer: http://www.transferleague.co.uk
Last edited by devaney on Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Net Spend Over The Last 5 Years (10 years
are in brackets)
LFC £300m (£420m)
Everton +£33m (£211m)
Arsenal £557m (£853m)
Spurs £545m (£657m)
Chelsea £966m (£1072m)
Man City £165m (£833m)
Man United £650m (£1204m)
devaney
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 5132
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Liverpool

Postby Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:25 pm

Man Utd have spent millions - there net spend is low because they sold one player for over £80mil ! They also are at a position of strength already as opposed to trying fight up from mid table

You can win cups but not spending too much but to win the league you need to spend and spend big and for that you need someone with deep pockets.

Just look at the league winners since the start of the prem. And it went a step up when Chelsea and City got their money.
Benny The Noon
 

Postby devaney » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:52 pm

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:25 pm wrote:Man Utd have spent millions - there net spend is low because they sold one player for over £80mil ! They also are at a position of strength already as opposed to trying fight up from mid table

You can win cups but not spending too much but to win the league you need to spend and spend big and for that you need someone with deep pockets.

Just look at the league winners since the start of the prem. And it went a step up when Chelsea and City got their money.


I'm sorry but you are being very simplistic. Take a look at this link: http://www.transferleague.co.uk

From 2003/04 to 2012/13 Chelsea's average net spend has been £52.5m per year compared to Man City £41.7m Liverpool £17.7m and Man United £12.3m.

I fully accept that United sold Ronaldo for £80m. Liverpool I seem to remember sold Torres for £50m and Alonso for £30m so that argument is somewhat futile.

Based on what you are saying Chelsea and Man City should be winning a lot more than they are and United should be winning a lot less!
Net Spend Over The Last 5 Years (10 years
are in brackets)
LFC £300m (£420m)
Everton +£33m (£211m)
Arsenal £557m (£853m)
Spurs £545m (£657m)
Chelsea £966m (£1072m)
Man City £165m (£833m)
Man United £650m (£1204m)
devaney
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 5132
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:12 am
Location: Liverpool

Postby Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:00 pm

Man Utd are up there already - and whilst up there they use their vast resources to stay competitive

Chelsea spent over £800mil in 9-10 years to get up there

City spent over half a billion in 3-4 years to get up there

They are the last 3 teams to win the title

UTD didn't need to purchase a brand new squad - they built on what they already have with big purchases.

Who was the last side to win the title that haven't spent a big deal of money and did it the "old way" ?! Leeds possibly in 92 ?

We built up a squad and then the owners stopped funding it - we then tried to build another squad and it was given a year.

To win the league you need big money or big debt - unless you can show me a club that doesn't have either that has won the league in recent years.

We won't win the league for a long time yet
Benny The Noon
 

Postby jacdaniel » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:03 pm

Is money all that important?  Well since the 04/05 season, the only PL winners have been United, City and Chelsea.  So yes it really is all that important.

As Benny mentioned, United are still up there because they've been run well and have been in a position of strength for 20 years. 
Will they be able to keep that when Fergie is gone?  That remains to be seen. 

Its a nice romantic thought to think that we'll return to dominance by being well run etc etc, but there's a good chance that it won't happen without huge investment and the ability to pay huge wages.

Im honestly not sure how id feel about it though.
"When you walk, through a storm, hold your head up high"
User avatar
jacdaniel
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 2616
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Postby parchpea » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:11 pm

United have been ploughing money in for 30 years and created a busIness
model ahead of its time to pretty much take over the game here and as
we hung on to the past and fell back they moved forward at a rapid rate.

Chelsea and City just pumped big cash sums in over a short period to catch
up United in the short term but are failing to maintain it in the long game which
is ultimately the key to domination.

Either way you need big money as a starting point and enough ambition and wealth
to keep putting back in when you screw up and not lose your bottle.

If we look at City this year they failed to invest properly when United took RVP and
its costing them, you cannot rest and have to keep pumping cash in and covering your
opponents moves in the market and it costs an absolute fortune. One mistake in the
summer will cost them their title.

What I am trying to say its an expensive game to win and the only people who have the
money to play serious are in the middle east and russia and anyone else is just paying to
sit at the table without a hope of collecting.
parchpea
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 4040
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:13 am

Postby LFC1990 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:26 pm

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:00 pm wrote:Man Utd are up there already - and whilst up there they use their vast resources to stay competitive



Who was the last side to win the title that haven't spent a big deal of money and did it the "old way" ?! Leeds possibly in 92 ?

To win the league you need big money or big debt - unless you can show me a club that doesn't have either that has won the league in recent years.



How about Arsenal
Image

The master and his apprentice
LFC1990
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:24 pm

Next

Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 49 guests

  • Advertisement
ShopTill-e