🔴 EOTK Insider Opinion: FSG's economics aren't as thrilling as some of our rivals'... but I still wouldn't trade our owners 💰

FSG have already delivered on their promise of success... but sustained success is a different beast

Since Manchester City have been linked with big-money moves for Jack Grealish and Harry Kane, and Manchester United have literally engaged in a big-money move for Jadon Sancho, social media has been a cesspit of memes ridiculing Liverpool’s owners over a perceived lack of investment.

Recently, this culminated in a tweet from Sunday World journalist Kevin Palmer - well-known for breaking the story of Van Dijk’s move to Anfield in 2017 - commenting on the difficulty of Jurgen Klopp’s job under Fenway Sports Group’s ownership.

Kevin Palmer 💙 @RealKevinPalmer

* #MUFC get Jadon Sancho * #MCFC in for Kane/Grealish * #CFC weighing up Haaland bid Now reports that Liverpool can only afford new signings if they raise money by selling fringe players. Very hard for Jurgen Klopp to sustain succeed using FSG economics #LFC

It raises an important question: who else would be better suited to Liverpool? Who could take the club to heights beyond the grasp of the Red Sox owners?

Unless we’re talking about oil barons or oligarchs, there aren’t really any other options.

We’ve had suitors of such a variety, of course, with FSG reportedly rejecting a bid in the region of £3 billion thought to have originated from the Middle East.

There’s an allure to that kind of oil-infused instant success, but an inherent risk that comes attached to the very soul of the club not to mention any success that stems from such investment.

This may come across as being somewhat ‘FSG-apologist’ but the reality of the situation is that the argument sits reasonably well regardless of what you throw at it.

Deplorable as our American owners’ active involvement in the decision-making around the proposed European Super League was, we can’t avoid the fact that John W. Henry and co. have sinned with our best interests at heart.

Again, I’d just like to make clear that we’re not overlooking the litany of sins FSG have committed already throughout their tenure from furloughing staff to engaging in an international coup.

However, there’s a fine line between recognising Liverpool’s struggles to compete financially with our rivals and accusations of a lack of investment.

From the perspective of infrastructure alone, the Boston-based organisation has invested over £200m, potentially boosting the capacity of Anfield from over 45,000 to roughly in excess of 61,000, not to mention building a state-of-the-art training facility.

With the Liverpool Echo reporting that the investment in the Main Stand alone brought in an additional £12m in matchday revenue, one might reasonably expect a similar occurrence to follow the completion of the latest stadium renovation.

FSG may not be able to casually toss hundreds of millions to Jurgen Klopp and the recruitment department every summer like it’s just backpocket change, but the owners are investing heavily where it counts in order for Liverpool to benefit financially in the long-run.

This will be reliant to an extent on a return to normality following the relaxation of restrictions in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, but you can see the thought process involved.

Nonetheless, FSG do have a long and difficult path ahead of them to regain a semblance of the trust fans held in them following the breakaway Super League debacle, no question about it.

But if you were to put in front of me John W. Henry’s sustainable project and the instant success, war of financial attrition approach offered by a Middle Eastern investor accused of human rights abuses, you’re damn right I’ll be slapping on a Red Sox cap and grasping the American’s hand instead.

If you’re of fan of this kind of content, all completely ad-free, then feel free to hit the subscribe button below and become an EOTK Insider. Dig into exclusive tidbits reserved only for our subscribers!