There is one significant distinction, in that FSG have delivered the EPL, CL and most successful Liverpool team in 20-30 years.Thought this sounded very familiar.
Liverpool mailbag: FSG's ownership model, productive Gravenberch talks and Thiago’s future
In our latest mailbag, The Athletic answers your questions regarding Liverpool’s summer transfer plans and the level of investment from FSGtheathletic.com
How is it that we have the third biggest turnover yet we don’t seem to be able to compete with Europe’s best for players? Simon C
This is an emotive subject. In terms of net-owner spending, I think you’re referring to this recent article in The Athletic. It’s no secret that FSG don’t put money into Liverpool — but neither do they take cash out of the club. The fact Liverpool’s net-owner funding over the past five years stands at negative £37million is down to the money that’s been repaid to the owners for the low-interest loan they took out to finance the new £110million Main Stand in 2016. The most recent accounts showed that the balance now stands at £71.4million.
My frustration with the debate over the ownership is that there seems to be so little middle ground, especially on social media. The idea that you’re either “FSG Out” or an “FSG apologist” is ridiculous. It is possible to believe the owners have done a lot of good things and made some mistakes along the way while questioning whether their self-sustaining business model for Liverpool can really bring more glory given the financial muscle of rivals.
There’s no mystery surrounding where the money goes. Liverpool played 63 games in 2021-22, generated club-record revenues of £594million, but still only made a pre-tax profit of £7.5m. The wage bill rocketed to £366million — an increase of nearly 17 per cent on the previous 12 months.
It’s not that Liverpool “don’t spend”, it’s just that rivals have deeper pockets or are willing to take on much greater levels of debt.
Look at 2021-22: the signing of Konate was effectively covered by summer sales, but then they spent £50million on Luis Diaz in the January window. Last season, if you include potential add-ons for incomings and outgoings and the January signing of Cody Gakpo, the net spend was around £75million.
I understand the argument that FSG should put in their own cash given the fact the value of their asset has rocketed since that £300million takeover in 2010, but they’ve consistently said throughout their tenure that Liverpool has to live within its means.
The time to judge whether FSG have backed Klopp sufficiently this summer is in August, not now.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Enic have delivered the Peace Cup & Aldi Cup
Plus CEO of the year and stadium of the year
I'd say that makes it fairly even tbh
Not really. FSG paid £300M, our speculative chancers paid £30M for the club and I’m fairly certain that was funded by some form of dodgy share dilution scheme so they didn’t have to fund it themselves.
Best paid Chairman in the world, you’ll never sing that
Actually The Walter Tull cup, so that makes it a treble, who needs oil money when we clean up like this.
Oh yes and I wonder who the "living with the means" approach benefits most....ownership or the fans
Of course. Which makes their fan whinging even worse. At least we’ve reason to be pissed off. It’s partly why I posted it.
Liberty Media, who own F1, are apparently looking at buying a football club. We’ve been mentioned.
They own the Atlanta Braves too.
And Virgin Media
Aye. And our recent F1 tie-up makes sense. Although Liverpool and ManU have been mentioned as possible alternatives.
Yeah just a minor point that...
You mean the far bigger club, historically more successful, bigger fan base, much bigger revenue… that club has been more successful in the past decade?
Wow.
Will you do Real Madrid next?
Think you missed the point here a bit or you probably missed mine.
There's OBVIOUS differences between the two owners but the general tone of that article wouldn't look out of place amongst our fanbase concerning ENIC.
I get that. Just pointing out there is a difference - they expect their owners to spend some of the paper value gains accumulated from their intirial investment of £300M. Loads of our fans are accepting that ENIC don’t need to do this, yet their initial investment was 10% of the Liverpool buy price
Haha Kroenkes showing ENIC up massively.
Key business done early with British transfer record for a player that would get into all teams in the top 6 and could be the key that unlocks a title for Woolwich.
Key business done early with British transfer record for a player that would get into all teams in the top 6 and could be the key that unlocks a title for Woolwich.
Which is the better deal -
Maddison for £40m, with Winks going the other way for £10m?
Or Rice for £100m up front and £5m in add ons?