Is there no alternative to FSG on the horizon?

[magicrat]

I'd be genuinely tempted to leave the lad on the bench for a few weeks. I think we can now afford to do it without a big dip in quality and it might point out to his agent that he isn't quite the established superstar that he thinks he is.

It might but I think its Sterling himself that need a reality check more than anything. He cant be that wet behind the ears that he doesn't  know what he's doing and I'm sure there's a few in the dressing room that will have had a word. Agents are without doubt greedy cunts i but I reckon half the time the players are driving the willing participants. 

[Dougie Do'ins]

It might but I think its Sterling himself that need a reality check more than anything. He cant be that wet behind the ears that he doesn't  know what he's doing and I'm sure there's a few in the dressing room that will have had a word. Agents are without doubt greedy cunts i but I reckon half the time the players are driving the willing participants. 

Exactly. It amazes me that people think Sterling is innocent an all this. At the end of the day he's just another player with no real affinity to our club. 

[Russ Atmosphere]

Exactly. It amazes me that people think Sterling is innocent an all this. At the end of the day he's just another player with no real affinity to our club. 

 

Which only makes us more grateful that Rickie Lambert eschews his unearned £40k a week, instead opting for a bag of dolly mixture.

[TheHowieLama]

I agree with you about benching him but it's to late to as regards sending a message to his agent. Rodgers has already said 'he's the best player of his age in Europe'. Must have been music to his agents ears when he heard that.

 

Do you think they didn't know he was the best player of his age in Europe?

[El Rojo]

Do you think they didn't know he was the best player of his age in Europe?

 

Lambo?

[Jairzinho]

There aren't many better 55 year old strikers in the game. 

[TheHowieLama]

[Mad Erik]

I think it's known in these circles a good bid could get us. I don't believe we're for sale per se - though when we're further down the line with the stadium I imagine we would be - but FSG are an investement group. Say someone came in with a good and fair offer (say, in the region of £550m) I think they'd be off. With a big profit. Good business from their point of view.

 

As for why you'd go for Milan over us, as mentioned above there's several factors. I personally wouldn't be suprised if some of Uncle Silvio's Mediasat stuff came in with it, but also Milan's a proper world-class city. Depending on who's counting (and how) it's got a population similar to Barcelona and Munich and nearly as many European Cups as those two put together. Even in a currently shit league, it's not too hard to see the potential.

[Clem H Fandango]

I'd be genuinely tempted to leave the lad on the bench for a few weeks. I think we can now afford to do it without a big dip in quality and it might point out to his agent that he isn't quite the established superstar that he thinks he is.

 

if he stays or go's, i still want him playing to chase 4th place whilst it's still possible.

[Pureblood]

The original article struck me that here was someone supposedly looking to invest £750m in Milan when Italian football isnt exactly the place I'd look to invest that kind of money (if I had it) in a football club.

 

If a 50% stake in Milan is worth £750m, you'd think a 100% stake in Liverpool could be bought for that if, there was anyone interested in making a bid

 

It also made me question once again, the belief held by a number of fans, that there's some mega rich potential owner of LFC out there, just waiting to buy us.

 

I don't doubt any of what you say but I don't see any causative link between what's happening with the Thai chap/Milan and our situation.

 

With all due respect whether or not you think it's good value is irrelevant.  If I had that kind of money I don't think I'd choose to spend it that way either but again that's beside the point.

 

For all we know he could've approached FSG in the first instance and they've already told him they're not interested.  

[Razoray]

I don't think we'll win anything major with FSG. The cannier than everyone else transfer policy overlooks the fact that the best teams are stocked with peak-aged players on the best wages. Even if we have transfer successes they'll likely be sold at that age point, for the greatest fee, and the wage saving.

 

I realise we got close last season, but in the end the lack of investment in the January transfer window that season saw that we ran on fumes at the most crucial time. It wasn't bad luck in my opinion, I saw players looking exhausted in the second half of games, and this was without any other competitions to be distracted by.

 

I'm not convinced Rodgers is good enough for us either, but that's irrelevant, only time will tell. However, if he were to win something of note, I think he'd be treated as an asset to FSG like any other and they'd sell at the right price or when the wage requests went too high.

Suarez is the only first team player that FSG have sold and I believe they wanted to keep him until his bite in the WC. It's a myth that they want to sell all our assets when they reach their peak and also that they wont pay high wages if deserved.

[Neil G]

But we didnt attract a buyer with those resources at that lowest ebb. There was no other credible bidders. That should surely tell you something?

 

Ive no doubt many people were hoping for such a buyer to appear.

It tells me that our circumstances in 2010 weren't conducive to carrying out a thorough, measured search for suitable buyers. If you're presenting what happened then as evidence that no-one would be interested in buying us now, it's a false comparison as the two situations are very different.

 

Back then we were owned by a pair of chancers who were determined to hang on to the club to the bitter end, even if that meant bankrupting it with unserviceable debt. And the people actually charged with finding a buyer - Broughton, Purslow and Ayre - were up against the clock to find one before the club defaulted on its debts and went into administration. The state of the club and all the ugly politics, power struggles and bad press that had surrounded it might have put some buyers off.

 

By contrast, if FSG were up for selling, there would be time for them to engage properly with potential buyers on their own terms and have constructive discussions about the terms of a sale, and time for the buyers to properly assess whether LFC would be a viable and worthwhile investment. With the increased TV and sponsorship revenue coming in, and with the stadium redevelopment complete, the club will be a much more attractive proposition to buyers, even at double or treble the price that FSG paid for it.

 

As for the claim that this Milan deal shows that there's no prospective buyer out there, I'll add to the points that others have made against it by saying that even if the price is correct and the deal is above board, £750m might not have swung the deal to buy us at this time. Yes FSG are in this for the profit, and yes that price would have represented an excellent return for them, but they are also interested in protecting their reputation as investors. For all we know they might have spoken with the Thai guy, thought his plans for the club were unsound, risky or just plain dodgy, and concluded that he could end up undoing all the work they've done to turn LFC into a well-run and sustainable business, including via the stadium redevelopment.

 

If the club went tits up as a result of them selling up at the first mega offer, it might harm their chances of buying other potentially profitable sports clubs in future. If on the other hand they hand LFC over in good shape to a responsible buyer who takes the club a stage further, their reputation will be enhanced and they'll be much more attractive to sellers of clubs who have an interest in seeing the club succeed.

 

Once the stadium is complete and all other revenue streams have been exploited, I'm sure £750m would tempt FSG to sell.

[Dave D]

Comparing them to Hicks and Gillet, then deciding they're okay on that basis alone, strikes me as strange.

Is Brad Jones a good signing, because he's not as shit as Itandje?

Itandge wasn't likely to steer the club into administration, dick as he maybe.

 

Mega rich City and Chelsea aside, if that's your point, I can't see better owners in the premiership than FSG.

[Nightcat]

Suarez is the only first team player that FSG have sold and I believe they wanted to keep him until his bite in the WC. It's a myth that they want to sell all our assets when they reach their peak and also that they wont pay high wages if deserved.

 

You are fucking lying shit. That's what you are.

 

So you are saying that players like Torres, Reina, Agger, Meirelis, Carroll, to name a few, were not first team players sold by FSG? Go fuck yourself.

 

It's a myth that they won't pay high wages. Yeah right. Since day one they have promised to implement the Arsenal model, to buy young players and sell them in a few years for profit and to decrease the wage bill setting also a salary cap. That's what they did.

[bossy]

I was hoping Nightcat would give his usual considered and sober opinion.

[xerxes]

Agree with this apart from the last sentence

They bought us for what, £220 mill? 

With the increase in revenue from the tv, sponsorship, shirt sales, champions league, increased capacity etc the value of our club has increased dramatically and, if managed well, could conceivably be worth not far of a billion in less than 10 years

Wealthy men don't get bored by that sort of thing, i'd imagine

The average stake is no more than £10m.

 

If the club has doubled in value after loans are paid back individual stakes return only £20m.

 

Jeffrey Vinik is worth around £325m, Seth Klarman, more than £700m, lebron james, £150m, I could go on. An extra £10m, or £20m, is neither here nor there.

 

We are a stake in an investment club which is low risk, low return. it has its advantages, but also its drawbacks.

[mattyq]

The average stake is no more than £10m.

 

If the club has doubled in value after loans are paid back individual stakes return only £20m.

 

Jeffrey Vinik is worth around £325m, Seth Klarman, more than £700m, lebron james, £150m, I could go on. An extra £10m, or £20m, is neither here nor there.

 

We are a stake in an investment club which is low risk, low return. it has its advantages, but also its drawbacks.

Kind of misses the point

John Henry is the principal owner. No other shareholders own more than 10%

I'd very much doubt whether the average stake is £10 mill but even if it was true it'd be down to Henry owning a significant stake and several partners owning relatively small stakes.

I don't think John Henry regards his Liverpool investment as neither here nor there

[Razoray]

You are fucking lying shit. That's what you are.

 

So you are saying that players like Torres, Reina, Agger, Meirelis, Carroll, to name a few, were not first team players sold by FSG? Go fuck yourself.

 

It's a myth that they won't pay high wages. Yeah right. Since day one they have promised to implement the Arsenal model, to buy young players and sell them in a few years for profit and to decrease the wage bill setting also a salary cap. That's what they did.

Torres - They didn't want to sell. He had to put in a transfer request to go and Chelsea had to pay silly money to get him. Replaced the same day with 2 players for £57m

Reina- Ya the owners made a fortune on that sale. He was a busted flush and was no longer worth the wages he was getting. Replaced with a £10m player.

Agger - The manager didn't rate him, he went to Denmark for pittance and was replaced with £17m and £20m defenders. Great asset stripping that.

Meireles - I agree that was a strange one but Kenny replaced him with Henderson for £9m more.

Carroll - He was a fucking joke of a player and we should thank God that Fat Sam paid £17m for an unfit carthorse.

 

Try harder next time please Nightchat shit.

[ratcatcher]

I don't doubt any of what you say but I don't see any causative link between what's happening with the Thai chap/Milan and our situation.

 

With all due respect whether or not you think it's good value is irrelevant.  If I had that kind of money I don't think I'd choose to spend it that way either but again that's beside the point.

 

For all we know he could've approached FSG in the first instance and they've already told him they're not interested.  

 

Well the proposition when I started the thread was is there no alternative on the horizon. There's a guy with £750m to invest in a club. The causal link is, if you have £750m to invest in a club, are you more likely to choose an Italian club in need of lots of investment, in a country where attendances at your games is low and the tv income is similarly low or would you seriously consider a club in the PL, not necessarily us, that has big attendances and a mega tv deal just anounced?

 

Yes, if he's dodgey, he may decide on Italy. Yes, if he's a staunch Milan fan, he may decide on them.

 

But if we look at it from a financial investment, the numbers stack up for England. Even if he is dodgey, he's going to need a hell of a lot of dodgey dealings to get his money back before he start turning a profit.

 

And with respect to you, I've not raised my personal point of whether its good value. Im simply putting it out there for debate, is there any alternative to FSG on the horizon.

 

Yes, he could have contacted FSG and yes, they could have told him no deal but I dont really see the point of dismissing something because people hypothetically propose such questions have been asked and answered.

 

It tells me that our circumstances in 2010 weren't conducive to carrying out a thorough, measured search for suitable buyers. If you're presenting what happened then as evidence that no-one would be interested in buying us now, it's a false comparison as the two situations are very different.

 

Back then we were owned by a pair of chancers who were determined to hang on to the club to the bitter end, even if that meant bankrupting it with unserviceable debt. And the people actually charged with finding a buyer - Broughton, Purslow and Ayre - were up against the clock to find one before the club defaulted on its debts and went into administration. The state of the club and all the ugly politics, power struggles and bad press that had surrounded it might have put some buyers off.

 

By contrast, if FSG were up for selling, there would be time for them to engage properly with potential buyers on their own terms and have constructive discussions about the terms of a sale, and time for the buyers to properly assess whether LFC would be a viable and worthwhile investment. With the increased TV and sponsorship revenue coming in, and with the stadium redevelopment complete, the club will be a much more attractive proposition to buyers, even at double or treble the price that FSG paid for it.

 

As for the claim that this Milan deal shows that there's no prospective buyer out there, I'll add to the points that others have made against it by saying that even if the price is correct and the deal is above board, £750m might not have swung the deal to buy us at this time. Yes FSG are in this for the profit, and yes that price would have represented an excellent return for them, but they are also interested in protecting their reputation as investors. For all we know they might have spoken with the Thai guy, thought his plans for the club were unsound, risky or just plain dodgy, and concluded that he could end up undoing all the work they've done to turn LFC into a well-run and sustainable business, including via the stadium redevelopment.

 

If the club went tits up as a result of them selling up at the first mega offer, it might harm their chances of buying other potentially profitable sports clubs in future. If on the other hand they hand LFC over in good shape to a responsible buyer who takes the club a stage further, their reputation will be enhanced and they'll be much more attractive to sellers of clubs who have an interest in seeing the club succeed.

 

Once the stadium is complete and all other revenue streams have been exploited, I'm sure £750m would tempt FSG to sell.

 

Oh come on, no one was in a position to do due dilligence?

 

The club was on the brink of administration, has sizeable assetts in the ground, Melwood, position in the PL, season ticket income etc, etc. Everyone say FSG got the club on the cheap (which I dont subscribe to).

 

Nevertheless, it presented an excellent opportunity for anyone prepared to invest the £300m to buy the club and cover the debt.

 

Sorry have I read this right, You suggest an offer of £750m might not swing a deal with FSG now but once they've built the extended Main Stand, £750m might tempt them? That's some weird logic there.

[ratcatcher]

We are a stake in an investment club which is low risk, low return. it has its advantages, but also its drawbacks.

 

And the option is what exactly?

[Pureblood]

Is there any alternative?  Yes, probably.

 

Is it related to Thai bloke/Milan?  No, in my opinion.  

[Neil G]

I meant more in the terms of how things were run. we wanted the club to live within its means without debt or shady off the books 'loans', we wanted owners to be either low key and/or not be an embarrassment, and we wanted the club to become more commercially savvy and stop being left behind off the park, I believe they've done all of those things. Take city and Chelsea out of the picture and FSG must be among the biggest spenders in the league too.

They have done all of those things, and I give them credit for it, but for me they were a minimum requirement for a new owner.

 

I always wanted an owner who was prepared to invest a decent amount of their own money in the club if it was necessary to get us competing at the top, even if it was just via a loan that they would recoup from increased revenues. FSG have done that so far, but the last two windows suggest to me that they're starting to tighten the pursestrings due to FFP.

 

The type of owner I'd like would take UEFA on over FFP, in the first instance by pushing the boundaries of the spending limits. More strategically, I'd want them to work on assembling a coalition of clubs to push for a change to FFP to allow owner investment up to a maximum limit, if necessary by bringing a court case against UEFA on the grounds of restraint of trade. No chance of FSG doing that though.

[dalglish2rush]

If we win anything under the fsg clowns it will be rodgers work

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[stringvest]

If we win anything under the fsg clowns it will be rodgers work

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

so these people who have done everything they said they would do are clowns?  In what way have the disappointed?  For me, the only thing they have got massively wrong is in failing to install experience in a director of football type role.  

[andyj]

some people have short memories ....remember Hicks and Gillette? some need a reality check !!! i think its fair to say we wouldnt have a club to support if it wasnt for FSG.

 

Ok they may not be the best owners in the world or the richest  but we cant really complain they have given a good transfer kitty  to the mangers carried out the stadium plans that they said they would and improved the turnover of the club...if they can do something with ticket prices then what else can we really ask for?