Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Go fuck yourselves FSG


Neil G
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, an tha said:

Just sell and get gone.

 

To who though? If it's not sovereign wealth or an oligarch, it's only likely to be an investment group like the current owners. In any case, whoever wants to buy the club would have to part with well over £2bn, and that's before accounting for any money required to invest in the squad and infrastructure.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Tony Moanero said:

Eh? You need to stop buying your chocolate from St Johns Market. Swiss and Belgian chocolate is ace. In terms of chocolate that is readily available in this country and relatively inexpensive, Lindt is nice. 

Tony knows his chocolate. Spot on.

And,fuck off FSG and take your shitty chocolate with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trumo said:

 

To who though? If it's not sovereign wealth or an oligarch, it's only likely to be an investment group like the current owners. In any case, whoever wants to buy the club would have to part with well over £2bn, and that's before accounting for any money required to invest in the squad and infrastructure.

Owners who won't try and create £77 match tickets.

 

Owners who wouldn't try and claim furlough payments.

 

Owner who wouldn't have got in league with this ESL lark, acting like shadowy thieves in the night.

 

Owners who would back our manager with the sort of money he needs to not see us end up like we have this season.

 

I appreciate that FSG have got some things right and done well, but for me they have dragged our name through the mud one time too many and they don't do enough when it comes to transfer spend.

 

It isn't going to be easy to find the 'perfect' owners - i doubt they would even exist, but this shower are done here now IMHO and should leave as soon as possible.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2021 at 22:10, scottthecanuck said:

Almost always done to get a free stadium or tax concessions or both. Sometimes they are moved because fans just aren't attending and they're looking for a better market (usually one that recently lost a franchise due to refusal to grant free stadium tax concessions)

 

 They get away with it because fans have no power or support from government (except when doling out free stadiums and tax concessions) 

Its bizarre, I read about the Brooklyn Dodgers and how the owner was denied planning permission to build a new stadium so he just uprooted them and moved them to Los Angeles which is about as far away as you can get and a completely different culture to Brooklyn. 

 

Watched Boyz in the Hood a few nights ago and wondered if the LA Raiders still play at the Coliseum. Now they are the Las Vegas Raiders and play in a new stadium there. Strange stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Doctor Troy said:

Its bizarre, I read about the Brooklyn Dodgers and how the owner was denied planning permission to build a new stadium so he just uprooted them and moved them to Los Angeles which is about as far away as you can get and a completely different culture to Brooklyn. 

 

Watched Boyz in the Hood a few nights ago and wondered if the LA Raiders still play at the Coliseum. Now they are the Las Vegas Raiders and play in a new stadium there. Strange stuff. 

Even more crazy when you consider that O'Malley (Dodger owner) was able to convince Horace Stoneham the owner of the New York Giants to move out west with him (San Francisco). O'Malley knew the Dodgers couldn't go it alone and that other teams would refuse to travel that far to just play one team (until the Dodgers/Giants the furthest team west was St.Louis (practically the middle of the USA!). Thus because of the greed of one man New York lost 2 of its 3 teams at the same time. Imagine Spurs, Chelsea, West Ham etc all leaving leaving London and leaving only Arsenal behind. Fans were devastated but barely managed even a protest because they knew government would do nothing as it's the American way for those with money to always get what they want public interest be damned. 

 

I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons why they tried to trademark "Liverpool" was to give them the option to move the team some day but still retain a brand. Easy to rename the Brooklyn Dodgers (originally the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers) the LA Dodgers but what the fuck do you call Liverpool if you're not based there anymore and another team has been formed. Solution - legally prevent anyone else from calling themselves Liverpool. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2021 at 20:30, Doctor Troy said:

 

One of the things I can never understand about American sports is the way they just uproot a football or basketball team and move them to a city on the other side of the country. 

Does my head in that. How can you ever have a consistent fan-base when shit like that happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, scottthecanuck said:

Even more crazy when you consider that O'Malley (Dodger owner) was able to convince Horace Stoneham the owner of the New York Giants to move out west with him (San Francisco). O'Malley knew the Dodgers couldn't go it alone and that other teams would refuse to travel that far to just play one team (until the Dodgers/Giants the furthest team west was St.Louis (practically the middle of the USA!). Thus because of the greed of one man New York lost 2 of its 3 teams at the same time. Imagine Spurs, Chelsea, West Ham etc all leaving leaving London and leaving only Arsenal behind. Fans were devastated but barely managed even a protest because they knew government would do nothing as it's the American way for those with money to always get what they want public interest be damned. 

 

I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons why they tried to trademark "Liverpool" was to give them the option to move the team some day but still retain a brand. Easy to rename the Brooklyn Dodgers (originally the Brooklyn Trolley Dodgers) the LA Dodgers but what the fuck do you call Liverpool if you're not based there anymore and another team has been formed. Solution - legally prevent anyone else from calling themselves Liverpool. 

 

 

Good points mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/04/2021 at 19:40, Chip Butty said:

I’m not one for sticking the knife in, but they haven’t covered themselves in any glory here.

11A789E8-6F80-47D6-ABCE-BD1486E8A33A.jpeg

 

Not knowing the market for medals handed out to directors and their likes, that sounds like a pretty hefty sum! Nothing in the grand scheme of running a football club of course, but if they're that valuable, the sellers might be pleased with a greater sum of money? Do the club need all the medals of former employees? This really seems like a nothing story to me.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading the above, and most of the posts in this thread (not going back more than 20 pages...), it seems most are agreeing that the owners are cunts, and that they need to be replaced, as they;

  • only care about money
  • do not understand the sport or local culture
  • aren't interested in winning, just keeping us ticking over as an investment.

While I am sure that money and growing the value of Liverpool Football Club is pretty high on their agenda, I'd like to comment on the two latter points.

 

Firstly, I think one of the reasons they bought us (along with being a business opportunity, of course) is connected somewhere inbetween point two and three. Someone or several people within their organisation has some knowledge of the sport and its global appeal. I can easily see John Henry, Tom Werner and more thinking it could be a nice adventure dipping their toes into another sport, having overseen radical changes and success within baseball with the Red Sox. I'm sure some of that interest quickly intensified when they understood how big a name we are in international sports. While Red Sox are a historical MLB powerhouse in their native country, they're still only one of many sports teams across 4 major sports. To get the chance of rejuvenating an international superclub/fallen giant (for a relatively smallish outlay) must have been intriguing. Having grown up not really having an affinity with football, I'm tempted to give them some leeway with regards to not really "getting" the sport, its fans, rules and regulations. I'm still struggling to get a grip on American football, having watched it on telly since the 90's, and don't even get me started on cricket...

 

Secondly, the few Americans I know are absolutely obsessed with winning. It's what they are raised with from an early age. Winning or losing, there's normally not much inbetween. I'd be surprised if succesful businessmen like Henry defer much from that generalisation. I think there's plenty to criticise the current owners for, but I absolutely think it's important for them to win. I think they believe in their methods to do so as well. Get competent people in, preferably someone with a clear (and original) methodology to do so. I think they were duped by the financial fair play idea, and it was a (final) massive slap in the face when City (and PSG) didn't get punished for their obvious breeches of FFP. That more than anything (again, IMO) might have been what they were hoping to accomplish with the ESL. Some sort of regulation that led to a more level playing field. Should they have understood that a permanently closed shop was not what European football craved. Yep. Were they trying to act in the best interests of the football club in terms of giving us a better chance to win coveted trophies? I actually believe so.

 

Think about it. They have always pledged to keep a sound structure and to being selfsufficient. That's obviously not going to cut it in today's warped football climate. Debt is going to be skyrocketing for all clubs that try to follow the oil clubs. There's just no way to keep up. While we can always criticise Henry for getting a new yacht instead of buying player A, B and C for our club, I sincerely believe that him and his compatriots will try to win as much as possible with us. It won't be by digging into his or their pockets, but by trying to be smarter than the competitors.

 

In summary: Unless we want to be the plaything of another rotten regime, or someone has a similar connection with us as that Arsenal-loving Spotify founder, I think FSG is as good as it's going to get. No sound businessman or woman will dip into their own pockets and surrender hundreds of millions on players in a feeble attempt to keep up with Abu-Dhabi and Quatar FC. We'll at best be a sportswashing tool for similar regimes (the Saudis.... shudder). What we need to happen is a reform in football, and a regulatory cap on transfers and spending. Will it happen? Probably not for a while. I'll bask in the glory of our CL win and no 19 for quite a while, and while it's extremely annoying that the oil states keep corrupting our sport, there's sadly not much to do than try to give them a sporting fight on the field. Off it, we're powerless unless UEFA (ha-ha) and the PL (ha-ha-ha) and the broadcasters (ha-ha-ha-ha) intervene. Eh, or Boris....

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, lebron said:

 

Not knowing the market for medals handed out to directors and their likes, that sounds like a pretty hefty sum! Nothing in the grand scheme of running a football club of course, but if they're that valuable, the sellers might be pleased with a greater sum of money? Do the club need all the medals of former employees? This really seems like a nothing story to me.

 

 

Probably has a bit more historical significance than the medals of pegguy arphexad like

 

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158005636829013&id=60844719012&scmts=scwspsdd

 

I suppose it depends on if we've already got a drawer full of medals from that era already, no point collecting multiples of the same medals for the sake of it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aventus said:

Probably has a bit more historical significance than the medals of pegguy arphexad like

 

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158005636829013&id=60844719012&scmts=scwspsdd

 

I suppose it depends on if we've already got a drawer full of medals from that era already, no point collecting multiples of the same medals for the sake of it. 

Yeah, just thought the number seemed a bit steep. Also, just as much to do with the bolded part. 

Call me a cynic, but colour me completely unsurprised if the total sum gathered stays well below the 10 000 in the newspaper story though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool post £46m pre-tax loss as wages hit £325m and external debt rises sharply

 

GettyImages-1167053126-scaled-e161946287

 

They provide a snapshot of the financial impact of the global pandemic on Liverpool. The club’s accounts for the year to May 31 2020 show a pre-tax loss of £46 million. Total revenues were down by £43 million to £490 million — an eight per cent fall on the previous 12 months.

 

However, given that this figure covers only the opening three months of the crisis, the true cost of COVID-19 to Liverpool is much greater. Senior Anfield officials insist that figure currently stands at around £120 million in lost revenues and it’s expected to climb further in the coming months.

 

The club’s wage bill continued to rise, from £310 million in 2018-19 to £325 million last season — an increase of 4.8 per cent. Only Manchester City (£351 million) pay more in the Premier League. Liverpool’s wage bill stood at just £263 million for 2017-18, meaning it shot up 23.6 per cent in the space of two years.

 

The rise in the wage bill is understood to be heavily linked to bonuses as a result of Liverpool’s on-field success. The only significant senior signing made during this period was Takumi Minamino, who arrived from Salzburg for £7.25 million in January 2020, while Joel Matip, James Milner and Divock Origi agreed contract extensions.

 

The accounts show that Liverpool’s external debt rocketed from £50 million to £198 million as they reacted to the uncertainty of the pandemic by utilising their loan facilities. However, The Athletic understands that a significant chunk of this has since been repaid. The club has been able to largely support its cash flow through operating activities and commercial growth.

 

Media revenue dropped by £59 million to £202 million, although that 23 per cent slump is partly explained by the extension of the 2019-20 Premier League season beyond this accounting period.

 

With Liverpool playing their final nine league games in June and July, they had to wait longer than usual for the final instalment of money from the broadcasters. As Premier League champions they received a total of £161 million in TV income and prize money for 2019-20 but they have had to contribute around £17 million towards the broadcaster rebate.

 

The Athletic understands that about £28 million in media revenue for last season will be in the next set of accounts. So, in real terms, they suffered a £31 million reduction rather than £59 million.

 

Having banked £95 million from winning the Champions League in 2019, that payout from UEFA fell to £71 million for 2019-20 after Jurgen Klopp’s side lost to Atletico Madrid in the last 16 shortly before the first lockdown in March 2020.

 

Match-day revenue was down 15 per cent, by £13 million to £71 million, as a result of having four fewer Premier League home games during that period until the end of May.

 

This is where the pandemic has really cut deep. Match-day revenue will be virtually non-existent in the next set of accounts, with the 2020-21 season largely played behind closed doors.

 

Liverpool have had 26 home matches in all competitions since the pandemic first struck. With each full house usually worth around £3 million to the club, that’s up to £78 million they have missed out on.

 

Commercial revenue bucked the trend as that stream increased by 15 per cent, up by £29 million to £217 million.

Eight new partnerships were announced in this period including Cadbury and Iugis. Nivea and Carlsberg renewed their existing long-term sponsorship deals with the club.

 

Liverpool’s retail arm also grew significantly, helped by Klopp’s men blowing their rivals away and putting themselves on the brink of title glory before the pandemic hit. There were record-breaking sales of their home kit and the club’s global expansion saw them open new stores in Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam.

 

Commercial success softened the blow in other areas and ensured that total income only dropped by eight per cent.

For context, the average decline in turnover for the top 10 clubs in the Deloitte Money League list for 2019-20 was 12 per cent. Liverpool sit fifth in that list behind Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Manchester United.

They are also fifth in Forbes’ list of the most valuable clubs at around £3 billion — almost double what they were two years ago.

 

Over the course of 2019-20, Liverpool spent £39.4 million on fixed asset investments related to the club’s infrastructure. The Athletic understands that around £25 million of that figure relates to the new £50 million training complex at Kirkby, which belatedly opened its doors last November.

 

The balance of the £110 million intercompany loan owed to Fenway Sports Group to cover the cost of the new Main Stand, which opened its doors in 2016, now stands at £71.4 million. Liverpool paid off a further £7.9 million last season.

 

Digitally, the club saw a huge growth in its global social media following — up 32 per cent annually as they gained an additional 22 million new followers. Liverpool remain the most followed Premier League club on YouTube and are the fastest-growing on Instagram. The club’s combined Twitter accounts reached 17.4 million followers — a 29 per cent increase on the previous season.

 

“This financial reporting period was up to May 2020, so approaching a year ago now. It does, however, begin to demonstrate the initial financial impact of the pandemic and the significant reductions in key revenue streams,” said Liverpool’s managing director Andy Hughes.

 

“We were in a solid financial position prior to the pandemic and since this reporting period, we have continued to manage our costs effectively and navigate our way through such an unprecedented period.

 

“Importantly, what has remained constant throughout the pandemic is the club’s desire to support the local community and those who live in and around Anfield and across the city region. We have also worked closely with our city partners and provided unwavering support to the region’s public health departments in their drive to promote the important health messages across the region to help keep local people safe.

 

“We can now look ahead to the conclusion of this season and hopefully a more normal start to next season. It’s no secret that supporters have been greatly missed at Anfield over the past year and we look forward to having them back.”

 

Fourteen months ago, Liverpool reported a pre-tax profit of £42 million and turnover up by 17 per cent — a £78 million rise to £533 million.

 

The pandemic has since taken its toll. The unprecedented losses contributed to John W Henry joining forces with the Glazers to back “Project Big Picture” and then sign up for the European Super League. But his attempts to seize greater power and riches failed on both occasions.

 

Last month’s £538 million investment from RedBird into Fenway Sports Group will help to provide stability for Liverpool until revenue streams fully recover. It also means they can continue to pursue the redevelopment of the Anfield Road Stand, which will push the stadium’s capacity past 60,000.

 

But for a club that is trying to be self-sufficient, the latest accounts show the challenge of trying to balance the books when the wage bill keeps rising and your income streams are massively disrupted.

 

Liverpool Women have announced a turnover of £1.7 million for 2020, an increase of 55 per cent compared to 2019. The rise was down to a 21 per cent increase in investment from parent company Liverpool FC as well as new commercial partnerships and revenue generated from playing a game at Anfield. After making a loss of £313,000 in 2019, that figure dropped to £5,000 in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...