Jump to content
FORUM IS CURRENTLY BEING UPGRADED, PLEASE BEAR WITH US. ×

Milners Decline


Loyalvillan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

claptrap

every owner has to purchase a club and FSG bought us on the cheap as explained and are spending money within a defined budget of surplus money generated by the club will be pumped back into the squad, not from their own pockets

You didn't answer my question!!

Basically FSG have pumped money into the club, just not in the conventional way, if the hadn't your profit margins would look drastically different and you wouldn't have as much to spend on players. Colour it how you like but they have pumped their own cash into the club.

controversial.png

When I was just a little boy i asked my mother what shall i beee.

Shall i be villa shall i be blues, Here's what she said to me......

YOU KNOW THE REST

Link to post
Share on other sites

England-CM-Comparison1.png

Think that points out quite well how Barry and Milner haven't been as great as people think. Gerard was injured for a fair while and he was far better than either of them.

controversial.png

When I was just a little boy i asked my mother what shall i beee.

Shall i be villa shall i be blues, Here's what she said to me......

YOU KNOW THE REST

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer my question!!

Basically FSG have pumped money into the club, just not in the conventional way, if the hadn't your profit margins would look drastically different and you wouldn't have as much to spend on players. Colour it how you like but they have pumped their own cash into the club.

you really are painfully wrong describing us as having sugar daddy owners, whatever tangent you go down never leads anywhere approaching common sense

they pumped money into RBS not the club and secured or benefited from outstanding sponsorship deals that are up there with leading clubs in world football

the club still has an operating debt, like most clubs who are not owned by a sugar daddy

Link to post
Share on other sites

you really are painfully wrong describing us as having sugar daddy owners, whatever tangent you go down never leads anywhere approaching common sense

they pumped money into RBS not the club and secured or benefited from outstanding sponsorship deals that are up there with leading clubs in world football

the club still has an operating debt, like most clubs who are not owned by a sugar daddy

So according to you our owner could go out and run up £100m in debt buy loads of players worth million and then sell us on to A mega rich corporation for £2 and then when the new owners re-build the club with the sale of £100's of millions worth I players that's working within our means with no investment from owners. I'm sorry but that's bollocks.

They paid RBS a sh*t load of money that should have been paid by the club and because the club doesn't need to pay RBS this money anymore they can use their revenue to buy players instead of paying off debt.

controversial.png

When I was just a little boy i asked my mother what shall i beee.

Shall i be villa shall i be blues, Here's what she said to me......

YOU KNOW THE REST

Link to post
Share on other sites

the previous owners put the purchase price onto the club as a massive debt, nothing else contributed apart from some plans for a new stadium that never got built. You are trying desperately to justify your statement that liverpool is owned by a sugar daddy. Would of been better to say we have been bought by what looks like a rich consortium of individuals looking to improve and grow a distressed asset in a sensible manageable manner, but no you persist and make up scenarios trying desperately prove your wrong point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the previous owners put the purchase price onto the club as a massive debt, nothing else contributed apart from some plans for a new stadium that never got built. You are trying desperately to justify your statement that liverpool is owned by a sugar daddy. Would of been better to say we have been bought by what looks like a rich consortium of individuals looking to improve and grow a distressed asset in a sensible manageable manner, but no you persist and make up scenarios trying desperately prove your wrong point.

Well that's your opinion. Whether you call it a sugar daddy or a rich consortium you're being backed by mega rich owners. You say I'm trying desperately to prove my point but my point had nothing to do with the words sugar daddy and the actual manner in which your club has tried to buy success with money that technically the club doesn't have and you're trying to argue the fact by clinging onto a turn of phrase.

controversial.png

When I was just a little boy i asked my mother what shall i beee.

Shall i be villa shall i be blues, Here's what she said to me......

YOU KNOW THE REST

Link to post
Share on other sites

weve been back and forth discussing if Liverpool is being run by a sugar daddy and they are not, doesn't matter if they are all worth vast amounts of money they aren't gonna pump it into the club and fastrack the team like the sugar daddy owners at city and chelsea. why can't you understand that? just admit that it's not the case

Link to post
Share on other sites

weve been back and forth discussing if Liverpool is being run by a sugar daddy and they are not, doesn't matter if they are all worth vast amounts of money they aren't gonna pump it into the club and fastrack the team like the sugar daddy owners at city and chelsea. why can't you understand that? just admit that it's not the case

Ok answer this very easy question.

If the new owners didn't agree a discounted price for the club and clear it of it's debt would kenny have been allowed to spend £120m on players??

controversial.png

When I was just a little boy i asked my mother what shall i beee.

Shall i be villa shall i be blues, Here's what she said to me......

YOU KNOW THE REST

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...