Jump to content
Dave D

FSG are not shit

Recommended Posts

Point is they gave Kenny a shitload of money and unfortunately it was not well spent even if he did win us a trophy. Good old Kenny. When Rodgers came in the purse strings were tightened somewhat but he was given all the Suarez money to spend. Again it was not spent well. Jurgen came in and money was made available to sign Mane Wijnaldum and Karius. We also spent £75m on van Dijk and no matter what some may say upwards of £60m or more to buy Keita.

Valid points. I’d say it’s equally important how the players are coached and bedded into a team functioning as a unit.

 

Upon arrival I guess Uniteds signings have looked at least equally impressive as Citys over the last years. Then after a year or two at the respektive clubs the City players stature has in most cases grown massively, whereas the United ones go the other way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All clubs are a selling club, well probably bar two in Spain.

I agree with your post, but the Neymar transfer showed where the real money is now, eventually only City and PSG will be the only non selling Clubs at least until the next moneybags owner arrives on the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of City, PSG, Barcelona, Real Madrid, or Bayern are selling clubs. Juventus, Chelsea and Manchester United are also considerably less so than we are.

 

 

 

 

All the good ones eventually want out though. We're a selling club now and players see us as a stepping stone. If Salah keeps his form he'll be off sometime in the next 3 windows. Keita has already talked about LFC being the next "step" in his career.

Henry won't get more involved because he isn't interested.

 

A succinct summary, in full. They'll all get the "baddie" treatment as well. It makes sense for both the player and FSG. Player gets to play for a club with ambition, club gets to look like it didn't want to sell.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we all just agree that all the owners we've had have been shit. That's why we are where we are today.

 

I don't honestly remember a single good thing that David moores did.

 

FSG have done some good things in some areas, but they also make some fucking disgusting decisions that rile me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder not to focus on dividends here is just one "creative way" that FSG have shall we say managed to benefit and take financially. The owners gave shares to at least two people, undisclosed minority shares to LeBron James and his agent. The beneficiary is Fenway Sports Management Group. They not Liverpool benefit financially from the arrangement see below. I could go on about sponsorship deals and how they can be manipulated see Mike Ashley at Newcastle and other owners around the globe. It's all on record in the leaked emails that show how Henry was highly interested in how owning Liverpool could benefit FSG financially. 

 

 

FSM own LeBron James global image rights not Liverpool

 

 

FSM is in the portfolio of companies owned by Fenway Sports Group, who own the Anfield club, and as part of the deal with James the 26-year-old has received a stake in the Premier League outfit. In April 2011, FSM became the sole marketer of the global rights of NBA superstar LeBron James, in a management partnership deal with James and his manager Maverick Carter. As part of the deal, James and Carter both became minority stake holders in FSG's Liverpool F.C..[8] 

 

 

https//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenway_Sports_Management 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interest on the loan, alone, is several million per year.  So, yea.  They haven't taken dividends, but the club is making money and we're not spending it.  What are they doing with it?

 

A lot of of it will be going on wages.

Some of it will have been earmarked for the training ground redevelopment

Some of it will have been used to repay debt. In the last set of accounts, and this answers NVs question too, we had the £110m shareholder loan to pay for the stadium costs, but we also had a £55m loan outstanding with banks, either of these loans could have been reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of of it will be going on wages.

Some of it will have been earmarked for the training ground redevelopment

Some of it will have been used to repay debt. In the last set of accounts, and this answers NVs question too, we had the £110m shareholder loan to pay for the stadium costs, but we also had a £55m loan outstanding with banks, either of these loans could have been reduced.

I can't see them paying their own loan down faster.  They're getting 5% interest-ish per year on that one.  I'm not sure what the rate of payback on the banking loan is, but I assume it's credit that is used for day to day operations and gets paid back at the end of the quarter/bi-yearly/yearly as its used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is they gave Kenny a shitload of money and unfortunately it was not well spent even if he did win us a trophy. Good old Kenny. When Rodgers came in the purse strings were tightened somewhat but he was given all the Suarez money to spend. Again it was not spent well. Jurgen came in and money was made available to sign Mane Wijnaldum and Karius. We also spent £75m on van Dijk and no matter what some may say upwards of £60m or more to buy Keita.

I think you have to balance this with player sales and the amount of high earners who have been moved on too. My views are the middle ground here in that we've been given enough to be a consistent top 4 club and we finally are once again but not enough to be genuine contenders. This is why I think Klopp is doing so well in that he's got us where we should be and perhaps even further on than that. The problem we seem to have is why are we having trouble holding on to players,Suarez,Coutinho and perhaps Can see us as a stepping stone while very few City and Chelsea players do. Is it wages? Is it lack of trophies? Is it both? I'm not sure there is a definitive answer myself,but questions can rightly be asked about the timing of departures and signings in relation to actually needing them to bolster a weaker squad than fellow CL teams. Regarding the Coutinho departure and Van Dijk signing it certainly looks like they were linked from an outsiders perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see them paying their own loan down faster.  They're getting 5% interest-ish per year on that one.  I'm not sure what the rate of payback on the banking loan is, but I assume it's credit that is used for day to day operations and gets paid back at the end of the quarter/bi-yearly/yearly as its used.

 

The interest they are getting on their loan is 1.24%. The interest we are paying to the banks is 2.24%.

 

The bank loan is a revolving facility that can be used as and when, so it will increase and decrease as cash is needed to pay for things, and then comes in from revenue streams (think Prem and Uefa pay quarterly, lump sum from season ticket sales etc).

 

We also do keep some cash on the balance sheet in our own accounts.

 

It would make sense to pay the bank loan off first to save on that extra 1% of interest, and then if that gets paid of and we have excess cash, if we don't have another need/use for it, to pay off the shareholder loan at a faster rate than the ~£23m that is scheduled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder not to focus on dividends here is just one "creative way" that FSG have shall we say managed to benefit and take financially. The owners gave shares to at least two people, undisclosed minority shares to LeBron James and his agent. The beneficiary is Fenway Sports Management Group. They not Liverpool benefit financially from the arrangement see below. I could go on about sponsorship deals and how they can be manipulated see Mike Ashley at Newcastle and other owners around the globe. It's all on record in the leaked emails that show how Henry was highly interested in how owning Liverpool could benefit FSG financially. 

 

 

FSM own LeBron James global image rights not Liverpool

 

 

FSM is in the portfolio of companies owned by Fenway Sports Group, who own the Anfield club, and as part of the deal with James the 26-year-old has received a stake in the Premier League outfit. In April 2011, FSM became the sole marketer of the global rights of NBA superstar LeBron James, in a management partnership deal with James and his manager Maverick Carter. As part of the deal, James and Carter both became minority stake holders in FSG's Liverpool F.C..[8] 

 

 

https//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenway_Sports_Management 

 

Yes, one of the reasons they bought us was because of cross marketing opportunities with their other sporting teams/businesses/enterprises, but this does not take any money out of the club and potentially brings money into the club, so I don't see an issue with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one of the reasons they bought us was because of cross marketing opportunities with their other sporting teams/businesses/enterprises, but this does not take any money out of the club and potentially brings money into the club, so I don't see an issue with it?

Yeah, I think he's saying that because they're our shares the money should be ours? I dunno, it didn't make much sense. That, of course, isn't how it works. They purchased the club/shares, so giving some out for association with other players/athletes doesn't take money out of our pockets. It could be argues that it puts money in our pockets, as you said. Probably via shirt sales and fans in the US, in this particular case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of America's most marketable sports stars regularly wearing LFC branded clothing might possibly have a positive effect...

 

Firstly it is one example of how the owners can take money out via Fenway Sports Management. Your analysis is focused on the Liverpool accounts and dividends. When there is documented evidence from the leaked emails as you are aware that the owners will look to profit in many different ways. I am trying to get you to look at the bigger picture.

 

As I said Liverpool do not get the commission from LeBron James image rights.

 

FSM get the commission and the rights

 

I will post more examples when I get a chance.

Edited by Denny Crane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny and Rodgers (country singer puns banned) were both backed to spend lots of money on some fairly average footballers.

 

Klopp has been backed to a similar level of spending and has signed some quite good footballers.

 

The credit and blame is to be distributed among them all really.

 

Currently, after some early learning curves, I would say FSG and Klopp seem to be a good balance.

 

If either of them get fucked off and pack their bags we could find ourselves really having something to moan about  

 

Yeah, the manager and owners are rowing in the same direction for a change.  With Kenny it felt like we were waiting for him to catch-up to modern football and brendan seemed like he wanted to be an Alex Ferguson type manager when FSG had made it clear that's not their model.  So it seemed they were always at loggerheads; briefing against each other etc.

 

Now it seems there's a path that everyone is following.  Fan patience is being tested though.  But I think everyone buys into the path if not the timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly it is one example of how the owners can take money out via Fenway Sports Management. Your analysis is focused on the Liverpool accounts and dividends. When there is documented evidence from the leaked emails as you are aware that the owners will look to profit in many different ways. I am trying to get you to look at the bigger picture.

 

As I said Liverpool do not get the commission from LeBron James image rights.

 

FSM get the commission and the rights

 

I will post more examples when I get a chance.

You said ‘taking out’. Earning money from a basketball player isn’t taking money out of Liverpool. There’s a massive difference to making money elsewhere that isn’t liverpool’s, never was, and wouldn’t exist otherwise, and taking money out.

 

Silly position to take, Den.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly it is one example of how the owners can take money out via Fenway Sports Management. Your analysis is focused on the Liverpool accounts and dividends. When there is documented evidence from the leaked emails as you are aware that the owners will look to profit in many different ways. I am trying to get you to look at the bigger picture.

 

As I said Liverpool do not get the commission from LeBron James image rights.

 

FSM get the commission and the rights

 

I will post more examples when I get a chance.

 

Money is not being taken out, money is being earned for them via a separate revenue stream through association.

 

We may not get any commission from LeBron's image rights, but if some of his fans see that he 'supports' Liverpool when he wears branded headphones, hats, jackets etc, they may become Liverpool fans and also buy some of the LFC branded clothes that he wears, become Liverpool fans, buy tickets for our US pre season tours, maybe even coming to Anfield and spending loads in the club shop, and so increasing our revenues through association. He also has a massive following in China, and I think he has done some promotions of/for us over there, which is potentially an even bigger market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's true we've got £150m to spend - which i don't think it is by the way, i think we've already spent the money on Van Dijk and Keita, but let's hypothetically say it is. You've got a player that's going to Arsenal that's one of the best players in the world and they're paying a maximum of £50m for him. Why not spend 1/3rd of that money on Aubameyang, secure Champions League football, and then take the £100m plus the £40m we get from qualifying and buy the Coutinho replacement in the summer?

 

What's the logic in refusing to spend, finishing 6th, and then missing out on our targets in the summer because they'd rather play Champions League football? The only logic is from FSG's perspective. They receive £150m for Coutinho and save on potentially £100m+ in the summer because the top class players don't want to join us anymore. How fans of a club (that want us to be successful) endorse this i'll never know. 

 

I would say because the manager does not want him here so your reasoning falls flat on its face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder not to focus on dividends here is just one "creative way" that FSG have shall we say managed to benefit and take financially. The owners gave shares to at least two people, undisclosed minority shares to LeBron James and his agent. The beneficiary is Fenway Sports Management Group. They not Liverpool benefit financially from the arrangement see below. I could go on about sponsorship deals and how they can be manipulated see Mike Ashley at Newcastle and other owners around the globe. It's all on record in the leaked emails that show how Henry was highly interested in how owning Liverpool could benefit FSG financially. 

 

 

FSM own LeBron James global image rights not Liverpool

 

 

FSM is in the portfolio of companies owned by Fenway Sports Group, who own the Anfield club, and as part of the deal with James the 26-year-old has received a stake in the Premier League outfit. In April 2011, FSM became the sole marketer of the global rights of NBA superstar LeBron James, in a management partnership deal with James and his manager Maverick Carter. As part of the deal, James and Carter both became minority stake holders in FSG's Liverpool F.C..[8] 

 

 

https//en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenway_Sports_Management 

 

Why would LFC own LeBron James' image rights. That is an absurd proposition you forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would LFC own LeBron James' image rights. That is an absurd proposition you forward.

Come on, man. Be fair. Before FSG we were fucking raking in the dough from the image rights of stars in different sports. Nigel Mansell’s Moustache Combs were a big earner.

 

WHERE’S THE FUCKING LEBRON MONEY, JOHN!!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody knows FSG aren't a charity. Of course they're in it for what they can get out of it. This is going to be true of every owner unless we get bought by some multi-billionaire with a vanity project or by some nation trying to polish their dodgy image.

 

The best we can realistically hope for is that the club is allowed to spend what it earns and that from time to time whoever owns us injects a bit of cash because it oils their profit take somewhere down the line.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial argument put forward on here was FSG do not take money out via dividends etc. My last few posts highlight it is not that simplistic. There is a specific reason why they have given him shares in Liverpool this is the key point. A key reason not just them buying us on the cheap but was that purchasing Liverpool strengthened FSG and in return receive additional funds directed to Fenway Sports Management or other parts of the group. So you can't just read numbers of the Liverpool accounts. You need to consider the impact on the other entities.

 

 

I can't believe I'm typing this but the Liverpool brand is bigger than LeBron James or the Red Sox. This isn't to diminish the two mentioned but LeBron James clearly benefits from being associated with Liverpool also!. Not just from his holding that has done rather well for him. The access to all sorts of supporters. We should be charging him. Would LeBron be happy to being associated with FSG if he didn't have access to the huge Liverpool supporter base etc. Surely that was a huge part of the spiel.

 

 

Anyway some of Henrys comments from the leaked emails.

 

Henry wrote: “There is a basic precept/combination that I have learned from Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett that interests me in Red.

“That is the concept of acquiring a top global brand at a discount price and ensuring it is well managed. I am interested now in trying to ascertain if this is indeed a major opportunity that would indeed diversify and strengthen NESV

 

Purslow on talking to them which we've all seen but relevant here.

 

 

"They may say they have money if necessary but I do not take this very seriously. Their eyes only lit up at the idea of other opportunity improvements. An American deal guy simply can't avoid using other people's money if they can.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial argument put forward on here was FSG do not take money out via dividends etc. My last few posts highlight it is not that simplistic. There is a specific reason why they have given him shares in Liverpool this is the key point. A key reason not just them buying us on the cheap but was that purchasing Liverpool strengthened FSG and in return receive additional funds directed to Fenway Sports Management or other parts of the group. So you can't just read numbers of the Liverpool accounts. You need to consider the impact on the other entities.

 

 

I can't believe I'm typing this but the Liverpool brand is bigger than LeBron James or the Red Sox. This isn't to diminish the two mentioned but LeBron James clearly benefits from being associated with Liverpool also!. Not just from his holding that has done rather well for him. The access to all sorts of supporters. We should be charging him. Would LeBron be happy to being associated with FSG if he didn't have access to the huge Liverpool supporter base etc. Surely that was a huge part of the spiel.

 

 

Anyway some of Henrys comments from the leaked emails.

 

Henry wrote: “There is a basic precept/combination that I have learned from Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett that interests me in Red.

“That is the concept of acquiring a top global brand at a discount price and ensuring it is well managed. I am interested now in trying to ascertain if this is indeed a major opportunity that would indeed diversify and strengthen NESV

 

Purslow on talking to them which we've all seen but relevant here.

 

 

"They may say they have money if necessary but I do not take this very seriously. Their eyes only lit up at the idea of other opportunity improvements. An American deal guy simply can't avoid using other people's money if they can.

 

Sorry you keep saying or implying FSG are taking money out of the club. I do not see how by any stretch you can say them giving James or anyone else shares in the club is them taking money out. You are just driving an agenda that is based on smoke and mirrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×