FSG are not shit

[Ginny]

Seen that apparently they’ve slapped a £1.2bn price tag on the club. Amanda stavelely is potentially interested. Just done a quick search on who she and she appears to be in good relationship with middle eastern investors.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

MIDDLE-EAST BUYS LIVERPOOL FROM UNDER CHINAS NOSE

[Harry Squatter]

Just sell ya cunts!

[Dan Vito Corleone]

I think the middle eastern boat has sailed now unfortunately. I don't see these jobbers selling before the new TV deal is discussed at the end of the year.

[Ginny]

Would love some rich Arab to come in a buy and just start throwing shit loads of cash around. Build a big fuck off stadium in the docks overlooking the Mersey. Start demanding we sign only the best players and extemely bullish in the transfer market and likes nothing other in life than to win and will do anything in his/her power to make it happen.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Would love some rich Arab to come in a buy and just start throwing shit loads of cash around. Build a big fuck off stadium in the docks overlooking the Mersey. Start demanding we sign only the best players and extemely bullish in the transfer market and likes nothing other in life than to win and will do anything in his/her power to make it happen.

 

Unrealistic. What are the chances of TWO merseyside clubs 'striking oil'?

[G Richards]

I think since FFP has been relaxed/violated; FSG's heart for this has waned. To begin with it was obvious they weren't born and bred billionaire scousers with a long history with LFC, but that was OK, so long as there was a convergence in interests. If the model was grow the commercial side of the club and let the team compete off the proceeds, while at the same time growing the asset to be sold at a later date for a large profit for them, then OK, I could get on board with that. 

 

However...

 

The part where it is falling down is seeing the team compete off the proceeds. We are not no-hopers, and we just qualified for the CL for only the second time in 8 years, so there is some sign of progress, even if we've had too many draws this season so far. 

 

But most fans do not expect us to fight for the title on a regular basis under the current conditions. Arguably we could have been more competitive had FFP not been relaxed or violated, but that ship appears to have sailed. 

 

So we are at a bit of a cross roads. To compete for the title regularly will require more investment; hence the need to sell, but not to anyone! They have to be able to deliver something like we've seen at Chelsea, Man City or PSG. To get there the owners will sell the club for 4x their investment, give or take, and walk away. Easy money. Massive money. For not really doing anything much beyond being in the right place at the right time. 

 

On the other hand, the owners may really be in for the long haul. They may have sussed that we can't really compete regularly for the title in the current set up, but they are content to operate a step below that and continue to benefit from the global influx of money in the Premier League. The new TV deal may add various streaming components with the likes of Amazon or FaceBook, and further down the line it might overtake TV and become much more lucrative. If they have their eye on that, they may be here for the duration. 

 

If they choose this latter option, they will need to stay away, as the fanbase will grow increasingly restless, as it becomes obvious that our interests are not converging, as they don't really need the sort of on-pitch success that the fans crave.

 

I guess it boils down to whether they want a big payday soon, or a steady income stream for the longer haul. You could make a case for either eventuality. My guess is they will want the payday sooner rather than later, given the age of many of the key investors, and given the likelihood of growing fan unrest as it dawns on everyone that we won't be able to compete for the title on a regular basis under their ownership.

[Rotpeter]

Would love some rich Arab to come in a buy and just start throwing shit loads of cash around. Build a big fuck off stadium in the docks overlooking the Mersey. Start demanding we sign only the best players and extemely bullish in the transfer market and likes nothing other in life than to win and will do anything in his/her power to make it happen.

Well at least people are being honest now!

 

When FSG were in for us, everyone was giving it, " I'd hate a sugardaddy anyway".  Nowadays you can't move for the toys coming out of prams because FSG aren't doing the sugardaddy thing.

[Grinch]

Well at least people are being honest now!

 

When FSG were in for us, everyone was giving it, " I'd hate a sugardaddy anyway".  Nowadays you can't move for the toys coming out of prams because FSG aren't doing the sugardaddy thing.

 

No, they're coming out of the pram cause FSG aren't spending what the club earns.  

[Boss]

I think we're stuck with them for a few more years yet. We're the goose that laid the golden egg for them. They aren't going to sell us out of the goodness of their heart.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

No, they're coming out of the pram cause FSG aren't spending what the club earns.  

 

Exactly. There is also a happy medium to be had, in that the owners invest in the squad without spending the ridiculous cash like City or PSG et all. 

[Rotpeter]

I think since FFP has been relaxed/violated; FSG's heart for this has waned. To begin with it was obvious they weren't born and bred billionaire scousers with a long history with LFC, but that was OK, so long as there was a convergence in interests. If the model was grow the commercial side of the club and let the team compete off the proceeds, while at the same time growing the asset to be sold at a later date for a large profit for them, then OK, I could get on board with that. 

 

However...

 

The part where it is falling down is seeing the team compete off the proceeds. We are not no-hopers, and we just qualified for the CL for only the second time in 8 years, so there is some sign of progress, even if we've had too many draws this season so far. 

 

But most fans do not expect us to fight for the title on a regular basis under the current conditions. Arguably we could have been more competitive had FFP not been relaxed or violated, but that ship appears to have sailed. 

 

So we are at a bit of a cross roads. To compete for the title regularly will require more investment; hence the need to sell, but not to anyone! They have to be able to deliver something like we've seen at Chelsea, Man City or PSG. To get there the owners will sell the club for 4x their investment, give or take, and walk away. Easy money. Massive money. For not really doing anything much beyond being in the right place at the right time. 

 

On the other hand, the owners may really be in for the long haul. They may have sussed that we can't really compete regularly for the title in the current set up, but they are content to operate a step below that and continue to benefit from the global influx of money in the Premier League. The new TV deal may add various streaming components with the likes of Amazon or FaceBook, and further down the line it might overtake TV and become much more lucrative. If they have their eye on that, they may be here for the duration. 

 

If they choose this latter option, they will need to stay away, as the fanbase will grow increasingly restless, as it becomes obvious that our interests are not converging, as they don't really need the sort of on-pitch success that the fans crave.

 

I guess it boils down to whether they want a big payday soon, or a steady income stream for the longer haul. You could make a case for either eventuality. My guess is they will want the payday sooner rather than later, given the age of many of the key investors, and given the likelihood of growing fan unrest as it dawns on everyone that we won't be able to compete for the title on a regular basis under their ownership.

I hate to break this to you, but I think FSGs interest in us is strategic not simple dollars and cents.  They sell sponsorships and we're the part of a portfolio that has worldwide reach.  We strengthen what they already own as much as just generate revenue.

 

It will take big, big bucks to make them sell.

[The Woolster]

I'd love to know the total of money received during their tenure from sales/loans/TV revenue deals/Sponsorship deals/League and cup placings.

 

If we compare that to total outgoings I'm guessing we'd be shocked. Well not so much shocked, but pissed off.

 

As of the last available financial accounts (2016), they have not taken a penny out in the form of dividends. They have put cash in, in the form of shareholder loans, some of which was converted to equity, some of which got repaid. Those loans, other than the stadium loans, carried zero interest. The stadium loan is paying something like 1.5% from memory, which is not very much at all.

 

If only looking at full financial years that they've been here, from year end 2012 to 2016, Total revenues were £1,230m. This excludes money received for transfers

 

Over the same period, wages were £758, other cash expenses (cost of sales, admin costs, paying of sacked management) were £297m , there has been a net cash outlfow on transfers (cash spent and received) of £208m. Add all that up and you get £1,263m spent.

 

You pissed off?

 

 

Realised I forgot capital expenditures, which is the general upkeep of buildings as well as the Main Stand redevelopment. Over this period, capex was £109m. Also didn't include interest paid on debt, which was another £15m.

 

So, £157m difference between what came in and what has been spent.

 

This was paid for with shareholder loans, £69m of which was converted into equity.

 

 

Exactly. There is also a happy medium to be had, in that the owners invest in the squad without spending the ridiculous cash like City or PSG et all.

 

If you ask a question and someone gives you a detailed response, the least you can do is remember it...

[Guest Pistonbroke]

 

 

 

 

 

If you ask a question and someone gives you a detailed response, the least you can do is remember it...

 

Apologies, but I don't read every post on these forums and my question was not aimed at anyone in specific but a general one. I had no way of knowing you had taken the time out to reply. 

[The Woolster]

I thought that might be the case, which is why I put the ...

 

But apology accepted, as long as you promise not to repeat that FSG haven't spent what the club has earned.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I thought that might be the case, which is why I put the ...

 

But apology accepted, as long as you promise not to repeat that FSG haven't spent what the club has earned.

 

That would all depend on figures being massaged or not. Are those figures for general perusal mate? Do they give a break down of all incoming and outgoing money?

[TheHowieLama]

Wooly - the net spend on transfers over those years is 208m?

[Grinch]

I thought that might be the case, which is why I put the ...

 

But apology accepted, as long as you promise not to repeat that FSG haven't spent what the club has earned.

You're obviously smart enough to realise we've spent next to fuck all since those accounts.

 

Only you will know why you choose to ignore that and post old figures to paint our owners in a better light then they deserve.

[Moo]

Well at least people are being honest now!

 

When FSG were in for us, everyone was giving it, " I'd hate a sugardaddy anyway". Nowadays you can't move for the toys coming out of prams because FSG aren't doing the sugardaddy thing.

I expect people were being honest then, most I know personally, and many on here, wanted us to do it "the right way". But that was 7 years ago, 7 years is a long time in football and a very reasonable amount of time in which to re-evaluate.

[General Dryness]

You're obviously smart enough to realise we've spent next to fuck all since those accounts.

 

Only you will know why you choose to ignore that and post old figures to paint our owners in a better light then they deserve.

 

So if I'm reading Woolsters figures right, FSG made a loss of 33 million on LFC from 2012 to 2016. Which, considering the figures involved, is fucking peanuts. And they've probably more than recouped that since then. 

 

Considering that they're looking at making a billion quid profit on their initial outlay, I'm wondering what Woolsters point is too.

[Rotpeter]

So if I'm reading Woolsters figures right, FSG made a loss of 33 million on LFC from 2012 to 2016. Which, considering the figures involved, is fucking peanuts. And they've probably more than recouped that since then. 

 

Considering that they're looking at making a billion quid profit on their initial outlay, I'm wondering what Woolsters point is too.

 

Sub us a couple of mill till the weekend mate.  I'm good for it.

[General Dryness]

Sub us a couple of mill till the weekend mate.  I'm good for it.

 

As long as you're not planning to buy any football clubs with it.

 

Honestly mate, if I had a billion quid profit coming my way and was spending it on fuck all else, I'd see you right. But I'm not FSG.

[The Woolster]

That would all depend on figures being massaged or not. Are those figures for general perusal mate? Do they give a break down of all incoming and outgoing money?

 

All the information is available in the annual accounts, which you can find here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00035668/filing-history

 

The above is my analysis of the accounts. If there is anything wrong in them, this is because I have made a mistake and not because I have attempted to massage anything.

 

If you want, I can send you my spreadsheet, and you would be more than welcome to post it onto the site.

[The Woolster]

Wooly - the net spend on transfers over those years is 208m?

 

The net cash spend, yes. Transfers fees tend to be paid over time, then there are the various add-ons once specified events get achieved, and there are also the costs associated with transfers, which will mainly be the agent fees.

 

All this is why the net-spend debates based on reported transfer fees aren't a great way to look at things, although it is the best we have until the accounts are published.

[The Woolster]

You're obviously smart enough to realise we've spent next to fuck all since those accounts.

 

Only you will know why you choose to ignore that and post old figures to paint our owners in a better light then they deserve.

 

I am not ignoring anything, I am dealing with the public information that I have available. You have stated that FSG have not spent what the club has earned, and this is something that gets repeated fairly often by quite a few, so much so that it is becoming a 'fact'.

 

However, if you look at the accounts for the first 5 years of their ownership, this is demonstrably false. Once we have the accounts for last season and then the season we are currently in, I believe that this will prove to still be false, as by my calcs the club has spent almost £160m more than what came in over those 5 years, and I don't think the last 2 summer transfer windows will have seen a surplus of that size. I have looked at it and made some guesses as to where we might be, but if I am telling you that you are incorrect and I start arguing with numbers that I have made up to prove my point, then in my opinion my argument loses a lot of credibility.

 

I don't care if people like or dislike FSG, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but lets not make things up to support that view one way or another.