Jump to content
Dave D

FSG are not shit

Recommended Posts

After having over 3 years to reflect after recklessly starting this thread I can only conclude......that,....ummm...they're alright....I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking after the Boston Red Sox side won the World Series last night, John W. Henry told U.S. sports reporters: “Kiev was painful. But getting there, you could say we’re a little ahead of schedule.

 

“I think Jurgen has solved our defensive issues and we are really strong at the back and really strong in midfield and everyone knows how good we are up front.

 

“That, as well, is a very special team and it could be a special season.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aventus said:

Hopefully with the red sox winning the world series then John can skim a bit of their profits off the top and send it our way. 

Seeing as they are about to give Mookie Betts  a $400M contract i don't think there will  be much left

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2018 at 8:58 PM, daved said:

After having over 3 years to reflect after recklessly starting this thread I can only conclude......that,....ummm...they're alright....I think.

 

Did you start this thread, Dave? You never mentioned it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 3:08 PM, Captain Turdseye said:

 

Did you start this thread, Dave? You never mentioned it. 

It was never my intention to become so famous and popular and utterly right.

 

They were just by products really.

 

I dont like to bring it up. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://nypost.com/2018/11/08/liverpool-fc-is-quietly-on-the-market/

 

John Henry, the billionaire owner of the Boston Red Sox, has quietly signaled he’s willing to sell his other trophy sports franchise, the UK-based soccer team Liverpool FC, The Post has learned.

Henry — who on Oct. 28 was busy popping champagne as the Red Sox beat the Los Angeles Dodgers to win the World Series — is running a “passive sales process” for Liverpool, according to a source close to the situation.

That means Henry is privately entertaining offers in an informal process that’s outside of an official auction — and is looking for a price well north of $2 billion, the source added.

“It’s for sale if he can get the right price,” the source close to the situation said.

Two other sources also said Liverpool is essentially for sale.

Reps for Henry, who bought Liverpool for $477 million in 2010, didn’t respond to calls for comment.

Despite the World Series victory, the Red Sox lost money this season, according to sources with direct knowledge of the team’s finances.

The Red Sox in 2018 had the highest payroll in baseball — about $238 million, sources told The Post on Thursday. The stratospheric payroll in turn triggered a “luxury tax” worth about $20 million that has helped exacerbate the team’s losses, sources said.

It couldn’t immediately be learned whether there was a direct connection between selling Liverpool and funding Red Sox losses.

Red Sox President of Baseball Operations Dave Dombrowski told The Post earlier Thursday, “We will never complain about finances. We have generous owners.”

 

Liverpool was recently given a $1.9 billion valuation by Forbes. In August, however, the Daily Mail reported that Sheik Khaled Bin Zayed Al Nahayan, whose family governs Abu Dhabi, made an unsuccessful approach to buy Liverpool in late 2017 and into early 2018 with a Chinese partner.

That bid, which a source said fell apart because the Chinese bidders couldn’t cobble together sufficient financing, was said to be worth $2.6 billion, according to the report.

Reps for Fenway Sports Group — Henry’s holding company, which owns the Red Sox and Liverpool FC, as well as 80 percent of the New England Sports Network and 50 percent of Roush Fenway Racing — denied in August that Liverpool was for sale.

But that’s clearly not the case now, said sources briefed on the situation.

“This is not fake news” that Henry is willing to sell Liverpool, a London sports investment banker following the situation said, although he added that he doubts a sale will happen soon.

Fenway Sports Group did not return calls.

Investors in Henry’s FSG holding company include the NBA superstar LeBron James, who reportedly owns a 2 percent stake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fingers crossed, there's absolutely no chance of competing long term self sufficiently.   The best we could ever hope for is capitalising in an off season and falling backwards the next, as evident across every major league in Europe. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grinch said:

Fingers crossed, there's absolutely no chance of competing long term self sufficiently.   The best we could ever hope for is capitalising in an off season and falling backwards the next, as evident across every major league in Europe. 

 

 

 

Sitting 9th in the global revenue ranking of football clubs, one place ahead of Juventus, saying we’re not able to compete sounds strange to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're businessmen and more interested in profit than anything, but they've done a very good job over the last few years by recruiting the right people. (They've also let themselves down badly with ticket prices and copyrighting the city's emblem).

 

For me the most positive thing they've done in terms of legacy is remaining at Anfield. Fuck constructing some 70,000 seater bowl that looks like it was bought at IKEA.

 

Like the owners of every other 'top' club, they're now  competing against a stacked deck thanks to the soulless void that is Manchester City. 

 

I'd rather the game was properly regulated and FFP enforced than us switching owners right now.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, El Rojo said:

They're businessmen and more interested in profit than anything, but they've done a very good job over the last few years by recruiting the right people. (They've also let themselves down badly with ticket prices and copyrighting the city's emblem).

 

For me the most positive thing they've done in terms of legacy is remaining at Anfield. Fuck constructing some 70,000 seater bowl that looks like it was bought at IKEA.

 

Like the owners of every other 'top' club, they're now  competing against a stacked deck thanks to the soulless void that is Manchester City. 

 

I'd rather the game was properly regulated and FFP enforced than us switching owners right now.

 

 

 

I'd rather Santa Claus existed and I didn't have to pay for xmas, both are as likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Joey8FrogsLegs said:

 

Sitting 9th in the global revenue ranking of football clubs, one place ahead of Juventus, saying we’re not able to compete sounds strange to me.

 

Revenue doesn't matter one bit to some clubs though, does it?  There's also another Manchester club that will get their shit together cause of their wealth, wealth we'll never be able to compete with.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Grinch said:

Fingers crossed, there's absolutely no chance of competing long term self sufficiently.   The best we could ever hope for is capitalising in an off season and falling backwards the next, as evident across every major league in Europe. 

 

 

 

Problem is, the only people likely to put their name into the hat are chancers who claim to be rich but don't have either the money or the expertise (take you pick from pretty much any foreign investor in a PL club), or sovereign wealth funds intrinsically linked to dubious regimes abroad (Man City, PSG). Exactly where we were in 2007 then, when it was between Hicks/Gillett and DIC.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2bn?

 

Yeah someone is gonna pay that aren't they and then pump in what is needed to get ground sorted and playing squad.

 

Much easier to buy a mid table club for 200m and spend the othet 1.8bn doing what Chelsea and City did 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Trumo said:

 

Problem is, the only people likely to put their name into the hat are chancers who claim to be rich but don't have either the money or the expertise (take you pick from pretty much any foreign investor in a PL club), or sovereign wealth funds intrinsically linked to dubious regimes abroad (Man City, PSG). Exactly where we were in 2007 then, when it was between Hicks/Gillett and DIC.

 

The only upside being that in the meantime the current owners will feel obliged to keep us at the level we are currently at in order to maximise the capital value. Unlike 2007  we haven't got to a point where the current owner is simply unable to compete financially with lots of others. I'm not saying we can compete financially with the petro clubs, or that FSG will lavish huge amounts on us in the short term, but it;s in their interests at least keep us consistently top 4. 

 

The real concern is potential lack of stewardship - will anyone at FSG give a shit about selling us to chancers with a leveraged buyout? 

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

  • Available Subscriptions

  • Latest Round Up

  • Last Match Report

  • Popular Contributors

  • Posts

    • I didn't absolve the EU of blame, any more than I absolved the UK or anywhere else of blame: I just pointed out that the problem highlighted in that article is the exploitation of migrant labour. As the article makes clear, it's a global problem. It's misleading, at best, to try to frame it as an EU problem.   Now that the UK has left the EU, those underpaid & overworked East Europeans in places like veg farms and sandwich factories will not be replaced by well-paid, well-respected British workers. That's not what Capitalism does. They will be replaced by people from poorer countries who will work for even less and will be even more exploitable, because they won't have the rights that come with citizenship. As a senior Tory secretly admitted in one of their WhatsApp groups, that's the whole point of Brexit.
    • Finally got around to watching the latest Tom Holland Spider-man movies after avoiding them due to hearing about the MCU interweaving and of course Far Away From Home, despite being a sequel, isn't a sequel really as you have had to watch all of The Avengers (i've not seen any) and probably other films to understand what the hell is going on initially. I really liked Homecoming but this whole thing about you needing to watch a load of stuff you aren't interested in just to get a handle on things is irritating, certainly in Far Away From Home.  I like Spider-man, i just don't care about the other MCU characters.      
    • The problem with the Brexit argument is that many people are stuck in black and white thinking. Much like the vaccination debate. The truth is there are fair arguments on both sides.   Taking inflation as an example. The world is largely experiencing rising inflation, so you are correct to point that out. And, as you yourself have pointed out on many occassions, Brexit has increased wages - costs which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer because that's how market forces work.   So there is truth in both sides of the argument - the world is experiencing higher inflationary pressures and Brexit is contributing (by your own admission) to those pressures. It is not true to say Brexit has no effect on inflation, nor is it true to say Britain's inflationary pressures are 100% down to Brexit.    
×