Go fuck yourselves FSG

[Guest ShoePiss]

That's a lot of scrolling. Not being lectured to about sugar daddies by a City fan on a Liverpool forum.

 

Yep

[RobbieOR]

That's a lot of scrolling. Not being lectured to about sugar daddies by a City fan on a Liverpool forum.

 

Could probably replace the 'sc' with a 't' and it would be still accurate.

 

Being patronised by a City fan. Fuck sake.

[xerxes]

I reckon they paid at least a hundred million less for the club than the going rate, so it's all gravy.

 

How do you reckon that?

 

Only one buyer was able to put down a non-refundable deposit and perform within the required timescale - NESV.

 

There was no going rate.

 

We have been sold twice in recent years with only three substantive buyers emerging, NESV, G&H, and the now defunct Dubai property investment arm of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum .

Edited May 31, 2013 by xerxes

[ZonkoVille77]

How do you reckon that?

 

Only one buyer was able to put down a non-refundable deposit and perform within the required timescale - NESV.

 

There was no going rate.

 

We have been sold twice in recent years with only three substabtive buyers emerging, NESV, G&H and the now defunct Dubai property investment arm of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum .

 

I find your lack of commas disturbing.

[SlugTrail]

No there is not.

 

If it was a business decision, you'd get business investment. Asking for a PERSONAL investment is because it's not actually working as a business.

 

This is where it all starts going pear shaped... once an investor starts pumping in personal money, the boundary between business and personal gamble become blurred. It becomes a personal gamble, not a business one.

 

It's all very nice to say "speculate to accumulate" or "pump some money in to increase revenue and increase the value of the club" but that doesn't always work. That's the point. You're asking people to take a RISK in doing that... the value of your investment can do down as well as up!...

 

If it was that easy, all clubs would just pump in 100 million, and get 150 million out. They don't... because football clubs (by and large) are a bad investment, and there's a disproportionate amount of risk associated with them.

 

Take Everton... for example. Their backers don't have the money. They DID put in money, and it didn't work. Now the banks are calling a lot of the shots, since it's effectively bank investment. Are the banks ploughing in loads MORE money to increase revenue and increase the value of the club? no they're not.... the reason? because it's too much of a gamble and the odds are actually against it.

 

Very few clubs increase their actual value (profitably) through investment. More often than not, the investment put in exceeds the increased value - ergo false economy.

 

City and Chelsea's values have gone up. As have their revenues. But not profitably. More went in than came out.

 

You may only be asking for 'modest' subsidy out of an owners pocket, but it's a subsidy all the same, and you CAN'T promise it'll pay back in the long run. It hasn't done so far.

 

 

Imagine Liverpool was YOUR business. And you owned it. You set out a budget where you can afford to buy the club, and you can pay 100 million for transfers.

You spend all that.

 

Then the fans say "you should be prepared to put in your own money to get your money back"...

 

At what point are you allowed to say "NO, I'm NOT putting in any more... why should I risk more of my personal wealth on this business?".

There is a limit!

 

That might be 30 million, it might be 300 million.

 

With Abramovich, his motives aren't clear - he might be a plaything. With Mansour, it's more complex. He may believe he IS getting his money back... in advertising for Abu Dhabi... it's a lot harder to quantify if he's getting value for money or not... but I would imagine there's a plan of some sort going on. City are a means to an end for him, part of a bigger business plan.

For FSG, Liverpool are a means to an end too, only their motivation is more tangible... monetary return.

If they KNEW putting on 100 million into LFC would give them 150 million return, they'd be putting up the money tomorrow. The reason they aren't is because there's a fair chance they could lose that money too.

 

What has made you draw that conclusion?

[zigackly]

I find your lack of commas disturbing.

 

Better than randomly scattering them in the wrong places, maybe.

[Cardie]

Fsg, in effect, underwrite the cost of signing players over and above our initial budget meaning we haven't had to sell a player to buy, certainly in the first few windows.

 

I'm more than happy with that setup

[derykw]

Fanchester`s not wrong though is he?

 

It`s piss easy to spend other peoples money when there`s no risk to yourself. Say John Henry and chums pass the hat and come up with £60m for the sake of argument and give it to the manager but the manager blows it on this years version of Carroll and Downing and the team goes backwards, then what then? do we expect them to cough up another £60m and then another?

 

In the dark days of H+G everyone was wishing we could spend what the club earned, well that`s what`s happening but now it`s not enough anymore.

[boomer39]

BORING.... what a waste of finger time...

[Guest ShoePiss]

I dont do twatter. And even if I did, I wouldnt believe anything on there unless I saw confirmation on the club site first.

 

Caught up yet?

[Neil G]

No there is not.

 

If it was a business decision, you'd get business investment. Asking for a PERSONAL investment is because it's not actually working as a business.

 

This is where it all starts going pear shaped... once an investor starts pumping in personal money, the boundary between business and personal gamble become blurred. It becomes a personal gamble, not a business one.

 

 

I'm not talking about FSG's shareholders putting their own personal money in. I'm talking about them putting in money from the assets of the rather large investment company that they own. It is a business decision.

 

Yes there's a risk, but that's business. If there were no risk involved in business, anybody could become a billionaire.

 

I would have the same expectation of any prospective new owner. There are other options besides a club relying solely on its own income and an owner gambling his kids' inheritance.

[zigackly]

Fanchester`s not wrong though is he?

 

No idea, I haven't read anything he's said past the first few words.

[Neil G]

Fanchester`s not wrong though is he?

 

It`s piss easy to spend other peoples money when there`s no risk to yourself. Say John Henry and chums pass the hat and come up with £60m for the sake of argument and give it to the manager but the manager blows it on this years version of Carroll and Downing and the team goes backwards, then what then? do we expect them to cough up another £60m and then another?

 

In the dark days of H+G everyone was wishing we could spend what the club earned, well that`s what`s happening but now it`s not enough anymore.

 

 

Yes he is.

 

The whole global economy is based on businesses investing in the hope and expectation of making a profitable return on their investments. There is always a risk involved in this, otherwise anyone and everyone could get rich with no effort.

 

If all businesses took the position you're advocating, and stopped investing because they were worried about the risk of failure, we'd be back in the dark ages.

 

FSG finally have a manager they want and trust. They picked him over a number of vastly more successful and experienced candidates. If they're not prepared to take a gamble on him with the money needed to get us back into the CL, if that's more than the amount the club can generate itself, then they're no good to us.

[Guest San Don]

Fanchester`s not wrong though is he?

 

It`s piss easy to spend other peoples money when there`s no risk to yourself. Say John Henry and chums pass the hat and come up with £60m for the sake of argument and give it to the manager but the manager blows it on this years version of Carroll and Downing and the team goes backwards, then what then? do we expect them to cough up another £60m and then another?

 

In the dark days of H+G everyone was wishing we could spend what the club earned, well that`s what`s happening but now it`s not enough anymore.

 

This.

[Cardie]

 

Yes he is.

 

The whole global economy is based on businesses investing in the hope and expectation of making a profitable return on their investments. There is always a risk involved in this' date=' otherwise anyone and everyone could get rich with no effort.

 

If all businesses took the position you're advocating, and stopped investing because they were worried about the risk of failure, we'd be back in the dark ages.

 

FSG finally have a manager they want and trust. They picked him over a number of vastly more successful and experienced candidates. If they're not prepared to take a gamble on him with the money needed to get us back into the CL, if that's more than the amount the club can generate itself, then they're no good to us.[/quote']

 

Businesses investing or the owners of those businesses investing?

[zigackly]

This.

 

Thisn't.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Thisn't.

 

This.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate this posts.

[derykw]

Yes he is.

 

The whole global economy is based on businesses investing in the hope and expectation of making a profitable return on their investments. There is always a risk involved in this, otherwise anyone and everyone could get rich with no effort.

 

If all businesses took the position you're advocating, and stopped investing because they were worried about the risk of failure, we'd be back in the dark ages.

 

FSG finally have a manager they want and trust. They picked him over a number of vastly more successful and experienced candidates. If they're not prepared to take a gamble on him with the money needed to get us back into the CL, if that's more than the amount the club can generate itself, then they're no good to us.

 

 

Basically you just want a Chelsea/City like sugar daddy. Nothing wrong with that but be honest about it.

 

The club accounts for the last few years have made grim reading yet we are still spending considerable sums on players so maybe FSG are investing more than we realize.

[Cardie]

 

Basically you just want a Chelsea/City like sugar daddy. Nothing wrong with that but be honest about it.

 

The club accounts for the last few years have made grim reading yet we are still spending considerable sums on players so maybe FSG are investing more than we realize.

 

If only that was the real issue them....

[Neil G]

Businesses investing or the owners of those businesses investing?

 

 

Businesses. As I've already explained.

[Guest San Don]

Thisn't.

 

Sorry Zig. I dont know if you're going through the male menopause :P but we dont seem to agree so much recently.

 

And it most definitely is.

[Neil G]

Basically you just want a Chelsea/City like sugar daddy. Nothing wrong with that but be honest about it.

 

 

Shame on me for biting. Top WUMage.

[Nightcat]

Basically you just want a Chelsea/City like sugar daddy. Nothing wrong with that but be honest about it.

 

The club accounts for the last few years have made grim reading yet we are still spending considerable sums on players so maybe FSG are investing more than we realize.

 

Yeah, he probably does. I want a real investor too, you may call him a sugardaddy, like all the rest of the football hipster superfan clan.

[Cardie]

Businesses. As I've already explained.

 

Wanted clarification because as it stands the business is investing.

[Cardie]

Yeah, he probably does. I want a real investor too, you may call him a sugardaddy, like all the rest of the football hipster superfan clan.

 

A real investor isn't somebody who just randomly pumps millions into a club.