Go fuck yourselves FSG

[xerxes]

The dichotomy is in the how not the what.

 

There is no dichotomy in the how. Maximum return for minimum outlay.

[vanball]

Coro claimed "FSG aren't looking to make money from the club." He was wrong.

 

I have no problem with the club being run for profit, we won't win anything, but neither will we disappear into the abyss of Administration.

 

In order to "build the club up" money needs to be spent on a new or redeveloped stadium. They have eschewed the former option, and have shown little progress in the latter.

 

I believe that the motivation of purchasewas not to invest significantly, but to run the club well and take windfall profits. They have succeeded in that by and large.

 

What FSG have actually "put in" subsequent to acquisition,and those terms, is unclear. the debt currently stands at around £90m.

 

it appears from the last accounts that some tens of millions of pounds were injected into the club. By whom, over what period, and on what terms is unknown.

 

I don't think that FSG are looking for a significant uplift in value by means of net investment, that is counter to their "risk averse" mantra, Seth Klarman would not allow it. Modest windfall growth in value is enough for them- but will not be enough for us fans.

 

I do believe, (and negatively inclined as you are, you are not this far gone) that for many on here, nothing will be good enough.

Firstly, it would appear that FSG are willing to spend over 20mm on a couple of players, and if they are not willing to splurge into the 45-75 mm range, not many are, are they? Secondly, even if they want to, most of those players won't come, so they are forced into their way of doing things (development based) or perhaps paying higher wages to convince them to come, which is contra to incentived remuneration.

We are where we are at this moment, and I have no problem with how they are trying to bring us forward - it may indeed not be enough, within the framework of how they have to operate - they are doing what they have to.

[piscinin]

There is no dichotomy in the how. Maximum return for minimum outlay.

 

Get back to me when you learn the difference between what and how.

[bossy]

Tis amazing how fans nowadays know so much about fucking everything.

[xerxes]

I do believe, (and negatively inclined as you are, you are not this far gone) that for many on here, nothing will be good enough.

Firstly, it would appear that FSG are willing to spend over 20mm on a couple of players, and if they are not willing to splurge into the 45-75 mm range, not many are, are they? Secondly, even if they want to, most of those players won't come, so they are forced into their way of doing things (development based) or perhaps paying higher wages to convince them to come, which is contra to incentived remuneration.

We are where we are at this moment, and I have no problem with how they are trying to bring us forward - it may indeed not be enough, within the framework of how they have to operate - they are doing what they have to.

 

All fair comment.

 

I am not negatively inclined towards FSG as an investment club or as owners. There was no-one else, they saved us from Administration and we are doing okay, thanks and all that.

 

Given that the new TV deal alone is worth an extra £30m a season to us, spending £20m on a couple of players is hardly a sign of their largesse.

 

The key point is whether what they are doing will be enough to crack the Top Four. I don't think it will be.

 

Mindful of where we could be in terms of our support base and spend, I think it is also fair comment to point out that an absence of significant net investment and a top rate CEO and Manager mean that we are unlikely to outwit our competition.

[Dr. J]

We simply can't compete financially with City, Chelsea, the mancs and Arsenal - at least not until if and when the FFP rules come in. We know that.

 

To me the question reduces to this: Can a well-managed team of good, not necessarily great players, be forged into a team capable of competing for the league and CL?

 

Imagine a team of great, world class players that plays like a team - they would be unbeatable. A team of great players that plays like individuals, amounts to little - we've seen that. A team of mediocre players with heart that plays like a team will have the odd, memorable success - we've been beaten by enough of them in cups games over the past few years.

 

It seems to me that Rodgers pitched the concept that a well organized team of, say, 10 million pound players, can compete against anybody and that FSG bought the idea because, well, what choice did they have? They don't have the resources of the petro-clubs or the stadiums of the others.

 

I don't know yet if Rodgers is the man to bring this off but I think it's possible, if only because of the history, tradition and support of the club.

[xerxes]

We simply can't compete financially with City, Chelsea, the mancs and Arsenal - at least not until if and when the FFP rules come in. We know that.

 

To me the question reduces to this: Can a well-managed team of good, not necessarily great players, be forged into a team capable of competing for the league and CL?

 

Imagine a team of great, world class players that plays like a team - they would be unbeatable. A team of great players that plays like individuals, amounts to little - we've seen that. A team of mediocre players with heart that plays like a team will have the odd, memorable success - we've been beaten by enough of them in cups games over the past few years.

 

It seems to me that Rodgers pitched the concept that a well organized team of, say, 10 million pound players, can compete against anybody and that FSG bought the idea because, well, what choice did they have? They don't have the resources of the petro-clubs or the stadiums of the others.

 

I don't know yet if Rodgers is the man to bring this off but I think it's possible, if only because of the history, tradition and support of the club.

Firstly, I think that FFP makes our task harder, not easier. Our position as a top eight club is consolidated, but so is our exile from the Top Four.

 

You acknowledge that class counts, but then think it won’t?

 

How will the history, tradition and support of the club mean that we crack the top four?

[Dr. J]

How will the history, tradition and support of the club mean that we crack the top four?

 

First, I'm not necessarily agreeing with what I imagine to be what happened - just inferring from what I've seen and heard.

 

To build any team, whether sport, the military or in business, there has to be some sort of esprit building mechanism. This is where City failed last year. The year before they, I mean the players as a collective, had something to prove as themselves - namely that they were not simply a bunch of mercenaries that had nothing to do with the club other than having a common sugar daddy. Last year, they showed themselves to be exactly that.

 

What can make us a team is the history of LFC, that playing here actually means something and can again if the players get behind that idea and make it happen. I actually believe that all our history and tradition not only mean something to us but can be translated into the energy that can bring a team together.

 

I was hoping, believed, that Kenny would do that.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Coro claimed "FSG aren't looking to make money from the club." He was wrong.

 

It wasn't Coro, but nevermind. That was only part of what he said.

 

the debt currently stands at around £90m.

 

That was how much the debt was in the last accounts. Plus, the way the debt is structured/who it is owed to makes a big difference. Much of that will be written off.

[xerxes]

It wasn't Coro, but nevermind. That was only part of what he said.

 

That was how much the debt was in the last accounts. Plus, the way the debt is structured/who it is owed to makes a big difference. Much of that will be written off.

 

You are right, it was Piscinin, not Coro.

 

I believe the debt is largely carried over from purchase - only £220m was actually paid for the Club.

 

Which parties will agree to debt being written off? Why should they?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You are right, it was Piscinin, not Coro.

 

I believe the debt is largely carried over from purchase - only £220m was actually paid for the Club.

 

I'm not looking at the accounts, but most of that debt seems to be an interest free loan from FSG. Or two loans. There was also debt in the form of an overdraft and some left over from the stadium fuck up by H and G.

 

Which parties will agree to debt being written off? Why should they?

 

When when the accounts were being discussed, it was generally accepted that FSG would have to write off their interest free loan. I'll have a look tomorrow and we'll get into it a bit more. I think it might have been Woolster who was up on this stuff a little more.

[Gym Beglin]

Gay and shit.

[TheHowieLama]

You two are like guys discussing a painting they have never seen.

[gmac]

.

Edited August 4, 2013 by gmac

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I have to say I think its really sad if none of them turned up for Stevie s testimonial. I don't know how true it is but I haven't seen it mentioned any of them turned up and there s load s of photos of ex managers and players from the game. I haven't seen one of John Henry or anybody from FSG.

[FrenchEyeGlass]

I have to say I think its really sad if none of them turned up for Stevie s testimonial. I don't know how true it is but I haven't seen it mentioned any of them turned up and there s load s of photos of ex managers and players from the game. I haven't seen one of John Henry or anybody from FSG.

 

I hadn't even thought of that, which in itself says a lot.

 

Who the fuck invests millions in an institution but never bothers visiting it on major event?

 

I think they're waiting to turn us over to be honest.

[dennis tooth]

Well it sounds like they might have been willing to sell him to Bayern last summer, the outward public coldness displayed toward Dalglish wasnt enough for you huh?

[Ranxerox]

You two are like guys discussing a painting they have never seen.

 

fabulous, have to spread otherwise I'd rep.

[xerxes]

I'm not looking at the accounts, but most of that debt seems to be an interest free loan from FSG. Or two loans. There was also debt in the form of an overdraft and some left over from the stadium fuck up by H and G.

 

 

 

When when the accounts were being discussed, it was generally accepted that FSG would have to write off their interest free loan. I'll have a look tomorrow and we'll get into it a bit more. I think it might have been Woolster who was up on this stuff a little more.

 

My understanding is that, on acquisition, around £80m bank debt was inherited. FSG chose not to pay it off, but instead to service it.

 

Subsequently, I understand that FSG have injected around £30m. Which individuals did that, and on what terms, is, I think unclear. But i don't think this element is that important, it is small print really.

 

The key point is that they bought us for £220m down and £80m debt, and that debt has remained fairly constant.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Debt rose by over £20m in the last set of accounts, and we made an annual loss of over 40m. I've not looked at the actually accounts yet, my head's like jelly.

 

EDIT: According to the Echo article I've just read, debt was up £22m to £87m, of which almost £50m is an inter-company loan. Which is basically FSG giving us money. Or will be. So if you take out the £22m which is what it has risen to due to the 40m losses, and the 50m intercompany loan, you're left with £15m. Obviously the 22m will stay, but that'll still only leave us with 37m. What really counts is our interest payments, which will be very healthy.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Numero Veinticinco

[xerxes]

Debt rose by over £20m in the last set of accounts, and we made an annual loss of over 40m. I've not looked at the actually accounts yet, my head's like jelly.

 

EDIT: According to the Echo article I've just read, debt was up £22m to £87m, of which almost £50m is an inter-company loan. Which is basically FSG giving us money. Or will be. So if you take out the £22m which is what it has risen to due to the 40m losses, and the 50m intercompany loan, you're left with £15m. Obviously the 22m will stay, but that'll still only leave us with 37m. What really counts is our interest payments, which will be very healthy.

 

You can't take out the £50m, it had to be borrowed to pay the bills, but I agree that our interest repayment position appears healthier.

 

For me this isn't about FSG's financial competence, given the mad world of football, they are amongst the sane,it is just about how much net investment is required to return to the glory days.

 

It is that question which will keep this debate going for a very long time.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You can't take out the £50m

 

You can, because it's not going to be paid back. It's not really a debt when you owe it to yourself and don't pay interest. The debt situation in the next accounts or two will be much improved, but because we're not paying interest it'll stay pretty much the same in that regard. About 3m a year, which isn't much.

[Walton Park]

Well it sounds like they might have been willing to sell him to Bayern last summer, the outward public coldness displayed toward Dalglish wasnt enough for you huh?

 

Or are you making ridiculous assumptions up like a 10 year old child?

[dennis tooth]

Or are you making ridiculous assumptions up like a 10 year old child?

 

I suggest you read back the part where I said 'It sounds like they might...'

 

Miss a turn.

[Ranxerox]

Henry deserves real credit for his latest on the Suarez affair.