Liverpool enter talks with Saudi Arabian and Qatari consortiums over a potential £3BILLION takeover

[Megadrive Man]

I'm sure they can find a buyer. Chelsea did and United look like they will and they both need huge investment in either a new stadium or a huge upgrade.

 

It feels like it's a mistake as we are just going to fall so far behind the other clubs.

[JustTosh]

42 minutes ago, Carra_is_legend said:

Possibly but selling a minority stake is perfect from their point of view. Minority stake will bring money into the club for transfers in the interim,

Would it? Really?

 

If you own a car that needs repearing and sell it to someone. Would you use the money to repair the car?

[Carra_is_legend]

1 minute ago, JustTosh said:

Would it? Really?

 

If you own a car that needs repearing and sell it to someone. Would you use the money to repair the car?

Eh? How is that car example even a comparison with selling minority stake in a football club?

 

[Tenfolder]

Not the best analogy but I understand it... Effectively why would FSG reinvest the money they make from a minority investment/stake in to the club when it's more likely that will be used to fund their latest focus(I believe this is starting a basketball team in Vegas which requires some real pocket change) or a few new fixtures for  John Ws yacht.

[JohnnyH]

Given what we will more than likely end up being owned by if there is a full sale, a minority stake would be great news.  Give me that over becoming some hate-states sponsored play thing to try and make them look good..

 

And the people who don't care who owns us as long as they spend can absolutely get to fuck as well. Short-termist, selfish fucking scum bags.

[JohnnyH]

4 minutes ago, Tenfolder said:

Not the best analogy but I understand it... Effectively why would FSG reinvest the money they make from a minority investment/stake in to the club when it's more likely that will be used to fund their latest focus(I believe this is starting a basketball team in Vegas which requires some real pocket change) or a few new fixtures for  John Ws yacht.

 

Because any person willing to invest a 'minority stake' (and lets not forget that "minority" in this instance means 100s of millions of dollars) is going to expect to see their money used to improve the asset they've invested in to create value for their investment and make them money.  Moving the money to some other venture over in Las Vegas does not do this.

[Scott_M]

33 minutes ago, JohnnyH said:

Given what we will more than likely end up being owned by if there is a full sale, a minority stake would be great news.  Give me that over becoming some hate-states sponsored play thing to try and make them look good..

Agreed. 
 

I’m going to add 2 + 2 and get 876,532 but anyway…

 

Am I right QSI get their money from

QIA? I would assume any sovereign wealth to purchase / invest in us would also come from or be closely linked to QIA. 

 

Companies can hold minority stakes in various clubs but can only have a controlling interest in 1 (ie Red Bull). 

It wouldn’t surprise if these denials in talks with QSI are factually true, but well might be in talks with another subsidiary of QIA, Qatar Kop Investment (QKI) or some shit. 
 

If we then got bought by QKI and the money is traced back to QIA, they’ll say “It’s only a minority stake anyway - which is allowed”.

This allows them to get their foot in the door and once they get their shit sorted with PSG etc, over time, they can increase their stake, hopefully once the Qataris have cleaned their act up significantly, which would be more appeasing to supporters.

 

Assuming that @Qatari tweet is true, I think the above would link into that. Qatar has “chosen to prioritise Liverpool”. They’ve had chats with a few clubs but want to progress further with us…

 

 

Charlie Kelly couldn’t come up with something that complex. 

[Jurgen Knows]

18 minutes ago, JohnnyH said:

 

Because any person willing to invest a 'minority stake' (and lets not forget that "minority" in this instance means 100s of millions of dollars) is going to expect to see their money used to improve the asset they've invested in to create value for their investment and make them money.  Moving the money to some other venture over in Las Vegas does not do this.

That’s not how it works in sales of shares. FSG would remain majority shareholders so by default it would still be in their interest to improve the asset they own 80% of. The money from the sale of 20% goes to the pocket of the selling shareholders. The club sees nothing of this money.

 

If FSG decide to raise additional capital instead of selling some of their shares then only in that case can the buyer expect the money to remain in the club. In that case the overall capital is increased but FSG’s shares are diluted. This is not what they have in mind though. My understanding is that they are looking for an outright sale of some of their shares.

[JohnnyH]

7 minutes ago, Jurgen Knows said:

That’s not how it works in sales of shares. FSG would remain majority shareholders so by default it would still be in their interest to improve the asset they own 80% of. The money from the sale of 20% goes to the pocket of the selling shareholders. The club sees nothing of this money.

 

If FSG decide to raise additional capital instead of selling some of their shares then only in that case can the buyer expect the money to remain in the club. In that case the overall capital is increased but FSG’s shares are diluted. This is not what they have in mind though. My understanding is that they are looking for an outright sale of some of their shares.

 

What you're talking about is standard dealing in shares of a business.  What you say is all correct and is how finance is controlled in a multi-interest business.  Bog standard stuff.

 

What I am talking about is when a major investor comes on board buying a minority stake in a major public world famous asset.  The conversations they have with Henry and co will be all around what are you going to do to put LFC back on top and create value for my investment. Value in this instance is money and profile.  If said investor is informed that there will be no significant investment in LFC but the money will go elsewhere and may create value, this will completely dilute the will to invest.  Any investor is going to want to be able to say they are a key investor in one of the worlds great sporting institutions.  Not that they invested 100s of millions and Liverpool are now back where we were in the 1990s, but have you seen hat baseballs stadium in Vegas?.  The investment here will be promoted as being a key investor in LFC and about getting LFC challenging at the very top again.  That's what's been sold.  If it was just a diluting of John Henry Investments shares, then that's what would be sold.  It's the kudos as much as the investment.

[aws]

7 minutes ago, JohnnyH said:

 

What you're talking about is standard dealing in shares of a business.  What you say is all correct and is how finance is controlled in a multi-interest business.  Bog standard stuff.

 

What I am talking about is when a major investor comes on board buying a minority stake in a major public world famous asset.  The conversations they have with Henry and co will be all around what are you going to do to put LFC back on top and create value for my investment. Value in this instance is money and profile.  If said investor is informed that there will be no significant investment in LFC but the money will go elsewhere and may create value, this will completely dilute the will to invest.  Any investor is going to want to be able to say they are a key investor in one of the worlds great sporting institutions.  Not that they invested 100s of millions and Liverpool are now back where we were in the 1990s, but have you seen hat baseballs stadium in Vegas?.  The investment here will be promoted as being a key investor in LFC and about getting LFC challenging at the very top again.  That's what's been sold.  If it was just a diluting of John Henry Investments shares, then that's what would be sold.  It's the kudos as much as the investment.

Exactly. The most important thing for a minority investor is a business plan showing how the business is going to increase in value and how much both owners are going to have to spend to ensure that increase. 

[Pete]

Sign some fucking midfielders you tight yank cunts. 

[Bogman]

Have they fucked off yet?

[Scott_M]

13 minutes ago, Pete said:

Sign some fucking midfielders you tight yank cunts. 

Bajectic, Keita, Jones, Doak & Ox….. like new signings.

[Jurgen Knows]

37 minutes ago, JohnnyH said:

 

What you're talking about is standard dealing in shares of a business.  What you say is all correct and is how finance is controlled in a multi-interest business.  Bog standard stuff.

 

What I am talking about is when a major investor comes on board buying a minority stake in a major public world famous asset.  The conversations they have with Henry and co will be all around what are you going to do to put LFC back on top and create value for my investment. Value in this instance is money and profile.  If said investor is informed that there will be no significant investment in LFC but the money will go elsewhere and may create value, this will completely dilute the will to invest.  Any investor is going to want to be able to say they are a key investor in one of the worlds great sporting institutions.  Not that they invested 100s of millions and Liverpool are now back where we were in the 1990s, but have you seen hat baseballs stadium in Vegas?.  The investment here will be promoted as being a key investor in LFC and about getting LFC challenging at the very top again.  That's what's been sold.  If it was just a diluting of John Henry Investments shares, then that's what would be sold.  It's the kudos as much as the investment.

For sure investors need to see potential future increase in value. Any project to achieve that increase in value will not be funded from the sales transaction though. The money from the sales transaction will go to FSG. The new investor may then put money in the club in the form of a loan or other type of financing to fund new projects. It won’t be a donation. The club will have to pay it back at some point.

[Poor Scouser T]

Surely some local enterprising 'business man' like Curtis Warren could have a look down the back of the sofa and buy us. Better a Cartel linked international drug trafficker than the Saudis

[Bobby Hundreds]

Fsg selling a stake will go straight into their own pockets why would they sell part of the club them put it back in, the new shareholders would be rubbing their hands together straight away. They want money to invest elsewhere.

[Scott_M]

10 minutes ago, Poor Scouser T said:

Surely some local enterprising 'business man' like Curtis Warren could have a look down the back of the sofa and buy us. Better a Cartel linked international drug trafficker than the Saudis

I’m still in disbelief that the plethora of multi-trillionaires, who made their fortune rescuing drowning kittens from rivers, were born & raised on Lower Breck Road and wants to donate all his money to us, haven’t been found yet. 

[Carra_is_legend]

1 hour ago, Tenfolder said:

Not the best analogy but I understand it... Effectively why would FSG reinvest the money they make from a minority investment/stake in to the club when it's more likely that will be used to fund their latest focus(I believe this is starting a basketball team in Vegas which requires some real pocket change) or a few new fixtures for  John Ws yacht.

 

It has been answered above already. A football club is not a traditional business and is hugely dependent on employees (players) who have a short shelf life. 

 

No champions league = no revenue, no growth, less value for minority stakeholders and therefore less appetite to invest

 

[Carra_is_legend]

28 minutes ago, Jurgen Knows said:

For sure investors need to see potential future increase in value. Any project to achieve that increase in value will not be funded from the sales transaction though. The money from the sales transaction will go to FSG. The new investor may then put money in the club in the form of a loan or other type of financing to fund new projects. It won’t be a donation. The club will have to pay it back at some point.

Typically a minority stake (say 10%) is sold at a higher market value. Say the club is worth 4bn, 10% might be 500m. Yes, I agree FSG will not invest the whole of 500m into the club, no one will......but the sale of 10% will most likely be conducted with an agreement/plan that 100m of that will be invested with the rest going to FSG's pockets. 

 

Many years ago we sold around 10% to Granada with the money (or most of it) going towards new players. Yes FSG are bigger cunts than Moores but they are not stupid. They know this team needs investment to compete again.

[Barrington Womble]

13 minutes ago, Carra_is_legend said:

Typically a minority stake (say 10%) is sold at a higher market value. Say the club is worth 4bn, 10% might be 500m. Yes, I agree FSG will not invest the whole of 500m into the club, no one will......but the sale of 10% will most likely be conducted with an agreement/plan that 100m of that will be invested with the rest going to FSG's pockets. 

 

Many years ago we sold around 10% to Granada with the money (or most of it) going towards new players. Yes FSG are bigger cunts than Moores but they are not stupid. They know this team needs investment to compete again.

When Moores did that sale though and reinvested, it was because he was a supporter of the club and wanted the team to achieve. That's not the case with FSG, they just want their asset to grow. I understand the argument that using the money to invest in the team may make us grow, but as countless teams have shown over the years, it also might not. Let's imagine for a moment that they do reinvest. What happens in 5 years time the next time the squad need refreshing, sell another 10%? It's not a sustainable model for them and they've shown absolutely nothing in their time here that would suggest they would do such a thing. In fact what they have shown at every step is they'll do everything in the cheapest possible way. 

[Carra_is_legend]

7 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

When Moores did that sale though and reinvested, it was because he was a supporter of the club and wanted the team to achieve. That's not the case with FSG, they just want their asset to grow. I understand the argument that using the money to invest in the team may make us grow, but as countless teams have shown over the years, it also might not. Let's imagine for a moment that they do reinvest. What happens in 5 years time the next time the squad need refreshing, sell another 10%? It's not a sustainable model for them and they've shown absolutely nothing in their time here that would suggest they would do such a thing. In fact what they have shown at every step is they'll do everything in the cheapest possible way. 

 

If they want their asset to grow Barry, they have to invest. I really do not know what other option they have. 2 or 3 years out of CL, the value of the club starts to come down drastically. 

 

They will continue to be cheap bastards, for sure......but they still have to spend some money to grow their asset. 

 

 

 

[TD_LFC]

40 minutes ago, Carra_is_legend said:

 

It has been answered above already. A football club is not a traditional business and is hugely dependent on employees (players) who have a short shelf life. 

 

No champions league = no revenue, no growth, less value for minority stakeholders and therefore less appetite to invest

 

You also mitigate the risk of investment and free up funds by increasing the resource pool.

[dockers_strike]

2 hours ago, MegadriveMan said:

I'm sure they can find a buyer. Chelsea did and United look like they will and they both need huge investment in either a new stadium or a huge upgrade.

 

It feels like it's a mistake as we are just going to fall so far behind the other clubs.

 

Any potential buyers now know the numbers being talked about for a sale, $4bn \ £3bn. That's a lot of wonga in anyone's language.

 

All of us fans are emotionally invested in the club. But buyers see it different.. By and large, Liverpool is a provincial city in Northern England to most of the world. It isnt London with its supposed worldwide appeal.

 

Despite our storied football history it's the same reason many footballers gravitate to signing for London clubs.

 

We've also a very vocal fanbase. Just look how we got involved cutting of the 2 cowboys hopes of raising capital. United fans may demonstrate against the Glazers but in my opinion, they havent got in there and really disrupted attempts at financing the club. It's quite possible potential buyers of us are aware of our previous actions even with FSG over 2000 high priced seats etc and decide they arent interested.

 

How else can we explain that at this point when chelsea were up for sale, groups were falling over themselves in the battle to buy the club yet all Im seeing is virtual radio silence, ridiculous rumours and twitter posts excepted?

 

2 hours ago, JohnnyH said:

 

Because any person willing to invest a 'minority stake' (and lets not forget that "minority" in this instance means 100s of millions of dollars) is going to expect to see their money used to improve the asset they've invested in to create value for their investment and make them money.  Moving the money to some other venture over in Las Vegas does not do this.

 

Exactly this. It's just the same old stick to beat FSG with. If they sell part of the club they'll just pocket the money. The reasoning being when they sold part of FSG, they pocketed that money. For some reason which escapes me, many assumed that was a part sale of Liverpool so part of the proceeds should have gone to the club. Except it wasnt and was never presented that way despite what some thought.

 

[Ronnie Whelan]

I wonder would the Qatari's initially buy say a 20% stake and then increase it over time or ultimately fully buy us in time.

[No2]

22 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

When Moores did that sale though and reinvested, it was because he was a supporter of the club and wanted the team to achieve. That's not the case with FSG, they just want their asset to grow. I understand the argument that using the money to invest in the team may make us grow, but as countless teams have shown over the years, it also might not. Let's imagine for a moment that they do reinvest. What happens in 5 years time the next time the squad need refreshing, sell another 10%? It's not a sustainable model for them and they've shown absolutely nothing in their time here that would suggest they would do such a thing. In fact what they have shown at every step is they'll do everything in the cheapest possible way. 

The squad shouldn't need a refresh in 5 years if managed properly. By all accounts we're about to post profits of £67m, if we had a £67m midfielder instead then this summer would we only need another £67m midfielder. The rest of the squad doesn't need major surgery, a Carvalho type every summer plus a starting XI player is all that should be needed.