Is it time the clock really started ticking?

[Muddled]

True, but If we'd have won those last 3 games we'd have won the title instead of ending up fourth.

True, it was a tough run-in though - had we beaten Man Utd I think we might have had the impetus to go on and win it.

[Corndog]

Spot on, which is why we need to go on this 'quest' and be savvy in the media to get the interest in the whole club going again. Youngsters will pick up on the magic of the club and the glory days of yesteryear and how we are striving to get there again. Just seems right now we are drifting along with an acceptance of our current situation. Well, and I hate to say it, but we need to do what Utd did in the 80s and which had such an effect on youngsters in that era who supported them. They built a momentum which culminated in tehm winning the tital again in 1992, after a 26 or 27 year gap. Well we need to get going if we are to match or eclipse that gap, but more importantly IMO get that momentum going!

What does that actually mean? what you are referring to i believe is an effective marketing strategy, which we actually already have given the growth of revenue from merchandising. the club markets itself very well imo, but you can only ever do so much with 'spin' when the product on the field does not match the prior reputation of the club.

New fans will follow success, simple, barring any sort of direct cultural/heritage reason for suppporting a team, thats why there are so many manc, LFC, barca, madrid etc. fans around the world. Already im noticing far more man city shirts and that club never even had glory days like this one did.

in conclusion, you could lecture new fans about LFCs past all day but they won't give a **** about what a club did in the 80s, all that matters to the most media centric generation ever is what they can see on the screen here and now, and unless thats LFC winning titles again then what you have described is jargon whcih is much easier said than actually done.

I don't think the club accepts the situation it is in now, rather it recognises the problem and are trying to find a way to go about fixing it.

[Corndog]

We must get back to being Liverpool again, the special club.

Get in players that played for us in the boardroom just like Bayern Munich for example.

You know that I have said that I believe that Rodgers isn't safe. The main reason being that I don't trust FSG at all making the right decision. Rodgers should stay but we have owners that don't know the game.

That is a big problem.

If we end up miles behind a CL place then Rodgers could be sacked. Kenny got sacked because of that reason and FSG said that they had no choice than to start all over again even that a lot of work had been put in.

Get in the right people to make the key football decisions.

This is the biggest myth about football ownership. do you think mike ashley or david gold understand football any better than FSG? what about the glazers? or Roman? Randy Lerner? the venkys? sheik city? QPRs owners (i have forgotten their names)

It is the football people at the club who rightly make football decisions and it is their concern alone as they have the necessary knowledge/ experience to do so, at least in theory, whether you think the football people at LFC are competent or not is another issue. and you can come out and say ' but who appoints the football people, its the owners' which is entirely true but they are very successful businessmen who you can guarentee have entered new industries before and used other agents to help them research and headhunt the right people as they see it.

I know absolutely nothing about American Football but i reckon give me two weeks and using nothing but the internet i could draw you up a fairly detailed shortlist for the current most successful head coaches, offensive/defensive coaches and the styles they like to implement on their team in the NFL.

Two of the best teams in the league are the toys of rich men? one of which has onyl ever been to a handful of games live, how much do you think he knows or really cares about football? asides from the pure thrill of winning.

Rants over

[Arn]

This is the biggest myth about football ownership. do you think mike ashley or david gold understand football any better than FSG? what about the glazers? or Roman? Randy Lerner? the venkys? sheik city? QPRs owners (i have forgotten their names)

It is the football people at the club who rightly make football decisions and it is their concern alone as they have the necessary knowledge/ experience to do so, at least in theory, whether you think the football people at LFC are competent or not is another issue. and you can come out and say ' but who appoints the football people, its the owners' which is entirely true but they are very successful businessmen who you can guarentee have entered new industries before and used other agents to help them research and headhunt the right people as they see it.

I know absolutely nothing about American Football but i reckon give me two weeks and using nothing but the internet i could draw you up a fairly detailed shortlist for the current most successful head coaches, offensive/defensive coaches and the styles they like to implement on their team in the NFL.

Two of the best teams in the league are the toys of rich men? one of which has onyl ever been to a handful of games live, how much do you think he knows or really cares about football? asides from the pure thrill of winning.

Rants over

If you look at City then they haven't sacked Mancini and they now got in the people to run the club, top class people that know the game inside out. They could have got in someone else but now the project can really start.

It is now the real building will start from top to bottom.

If you look at Chelsea then they have loaned out so many excellent young players that that team of loaned out players could challenge for a CL place. If they don't keep them then they can sell them and make big profits.

They have done the right thing. Loaned out the players they can't give playing time. They know what they are doing.

Man C isn't a sacking club and have a clear long term vision. Chelsea have so many excellent players that if they it was allowed then they would have two squads challenging for fourth place.

Of course City and Chelsea had to spend a lot of money in a short time to catch United. They wanted success as soon as possible and they wanted to keep winning, long and short term goals.

United is packed with £15m+ players. The main difference between City, Chelsea and United is wages.

In Citys case they had to give players very high wages or they would miss out on them. They didn't play in the CL and wasn't considered to be a big club.

The new players wanted wages that matched the players already at the club so they had to continue to offer very big wages.

[Neil Young]

Arn, why are you willing to allow Mansour nearly five years before he starts "the real building" and yet are writing off FSG as "the biggest problem" at the club after less than three?

It looks totally inconsistent.

[Arn]

Arn, why are you willing to allow Mansour nearly five years before he starts "the real building" and yet are writing off FSG as "the biggest problem" at the club after less than three?

It looks totally inconsistent.

The reasons being that Mansour clearly had a long term goal that you could see from the start. Winning more important than money.

Can you say what goals FSG have? Do they know how to build up a football club and I don't only mean off the pitch.

Mansour wanted City to be the number one club in the world. What do FSG want? A CL place before 2016 or what? Winning the league before 2020?

How do they want to build up the club?

I can't answer the above questions.

What visions do FSG have?

[Neil Young]

As far as I can see everything they've done is consistent with they've said all along about their plans. It's your prerogative not to believe them but I can't see a good reason why you'd choose not to.

[Mattshark]

The reasons being that Mansour clearly had a long term goal that you could see from the start. Winning more important than money.

Can you say what goals FSG have? Do they know how to build up a football club and I don't only mean off the pitch.

Mansour wanted City to be the number one club in the world. What do FSG want? A CL place before 2016 or what? Winning the league before 2020?

How do they want to build up the club?

I can't answer the above questions.

What visions do FSG have?

Well apart from saving the club and backing every manager to rebuild the squad. You are being ridiculous with the attacks on FSG, what exactly have they done to deserve your dislike?

[Sarb]

The difference between Mansour and FSG is quite a few billion. Mansour had the money to come in and treat City as his play thing, plough in millions and millions of pounds turning them into an overnight success. Owners like that are few and far between.

Most other owners have to work to a long term plan. Don't forget they came in and still allowed Kenny to spend a huge wedge of cash and have allowed the same to Brendan. They're doing it to a plan though as they don't have the wealth of Roman or Mansour. In that case, it's absolutely the right way to do it.

The only issues I have with FSG is that they are a little naive, but they deserve an enormous amount of credit also

[Corndog]

The reasons being that Mansour clearly had a long term goal that you could see from the start. Winning more important than money.

Can you say what goals FSG have? Do they know how to build up a football club and I don't only mean off the pitch.

Mansour wanted City to be the number one club in the world. What do FSG want? A CL place before 2016 or what? Winning the league before 2020?

How do they want to build up the club?

I can't answer the above questions.

What visions do FSG have?

I believe FSG have been very forthright with their strategy for the club. On several occasions they have outlined it by explaining that they want, to increase revenues and decrease expenditures to ensure the club can financially fund itself. They ahve even told us how they roughly plan to do this:

1.build/redevelop stadium to mazimise match day revenue
2. Strengthen commercial deals ie. Warrior so that we capitalise on the still large no. of supporters LFC has at home and abroad.
3. Cut costs by getting rid of joe coles and alberto aquilanis and ensure they mitigate risk somewhat by making contracts more heavily dependent upon performance bonuses. Suarez is a good example if you believe media reports
4. Fund the club with their own money as interest free loans so that we can improve in the short term, and get back into the champions league, and hence secure more revenue.

It is only with greater legitimate spending power that LFC can compete for the title both in the short and long term as we do not have sugar daddy owners and again FSG were very honest and up front about the fact that they were not that sort of owner either.

i would also argue City lack a long term vision, they are spending without a care for the potential for FFP to be enforced and are coming up with dodgy loopholes like the stadium naming rights as they go along.

[Corndog]

If you look at City then they haven't sacked Mancini and they now got in the people to run the club, top class people that know the game inside out. They could have got in someone else but now the project can really start.

It is now the real building will start from top to bottom.

If you look at Chelsea then they have loaned out so many excellent young players that that team of loaned out players could challenge for a CL place. If they don't keep them then they can sell them and make big profits.

They have done the right thing. Loaned out the players they can't give playing time. They know what they are doing.

Man C isn't a sacking club and have a clear long term vision. Chelsea have so many excellent players that if they it was allowed then they would have two squads challenging for fourth place.

Of course City and Chelsea had to spend a lot of money in a short time to catch United. They wanted success as soon as possible and they wanted to keep winning, long and short term goals.

United is packed with £15m+ players. The main difference between City, Chelsea and United is wages.

In Citys case they had to give players very high wages or they would miss out on them. They didn't play in the CL and wasn't considered to be a big club.

The new players wanted wages that matched the players already at the club so they had to continue to offer very big wages.

you didnt need to know much about football to know that hiring mancini was a decent move for them, he already had quite a good reputation.

I dont understand the loaning players arguments, again who gets loaned out or not or which player is purchased or sold should be the decision of the manager or in some clubs sporting directors. At no club is it the responsibility fo the owner to bother himself about these decisions . of course owners like Roman go above and beyond the call of duty and actually interfere, which can be detrimental.....see numerous articles on the 50mil flop that is Torres.

Liverpool doesnt have the money of man city or chelsea...but then most clubs don't.

Anyways thats how i see things. no point in saying anymore.

[kev776]

Maybe in financial terms we should be compared to the likes of Villa, Neverton, Barcodes etc, those clubs without a sugar daddy and without the pull of London. Compared with those clubs we punch above our weight.

[Tribute]

Maybe in financial terms we should be compared to the likes of Villa, Neverton, Barcodes etc, those clubs without a sugar daddy and without the pull of London. Compared with those clubs we punch above our weight.

...but we have the legacy of years of success and a huge worldwide fan base. None of those clubs mentioned come close in either department.

It feels like we're rebuilding quietly and without fuss... and with a bit more consistency on the park, a few talented, mentally strong new signings, I believe we're building something more resilient going forward. And best of all, we're doing it without drawing undue attention to ourselves.

[~LFCHistory~]

Maybe in financial terms we should be compared to the likes of Villa, Neverton, Barcodes etc, those clubs without a sugar daddy and without the pull of London. Compared with those clubs we punch above our weight.

Have Villa, Everton or Newcastle ever had a net spend of 40 million in one season ? That's what we've had this season and 35 million net the season before.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/liverpool-transfers.html

Sorry but this idea that we're punching above our weight financially or that FSG haven't backed the manager since they arrived just doesn't stand up to scrutiny I'm afraid. Dalglish and Commoli flushed an insane amount of money down the drain and Brendan's summer signings were god awful too, that's why we're were we are in the league right now.

[fah-q]

Maybe in financial terms we should be compared to the likes of Villa, Neverton, Barcodes etc, those clubs without a sugar daddy and without the pull of London. Compared with those clubs we punch above our weight.

Not really, in financial terms we are up with the elite. We are in the top 10 wealthiest clubs in the world last year and have been more or less since 2007 (not sure when they started doing this).

we may be some way below the top 3 clubs but despite our lack of recent success we are still miles above the lot you listed.