Spirit of Shankly: FSG - We Still Need Direction

[xerxes]

I refer you to the prophetic words of Christian Purslow,"

 

Thanks for digging that out- it made for chilling, prophetic reading.

 

Purslow's credentials as a financier were inversely proportional to those as a football MD.

 

A complex character, defiantly anti G&H in his notorious interview with SOS, credited by Broughton as being a key figure in their downfall his diastrous relationship with Rafa caused enormous damage.

 

FSG were undoubtedly better than nothing- just.

[TheHowieLama]

Yeah Zigz - really strange the whole line in the sand thing on a couple million under the circumstances. I just don't get it - especially after announcing him as signed - just weird. I don't know if I buy into the Ayre cocked it up but I do wonder if there was a miscommunication along the way. I don't believe Rogers offered half the players on the squad up in a pick 'em for Clint Dempsey.

For me, they have gotten so much right in terms of mindset, revenue, carving out the deadwood and even this window with a couple really nice players and a few bargains of the kind we should have been getting for years (whether they pan out, who knows.)

All that momentum and then to piss it away in the 11th hour, over 2 or 3 mil - just seems strange.

[zigackly]

They have got a lot right, and also a lot more than just this wrong. I realise and appreciate that we can't go hounding owners out of the club every time we disagree with them, but we can and should hold them to account when they get things wrong. They don't get a free ride simply for buying the club on the cheap, or at least as with Dalglish after a time, the honeymoon period is well and truly over.

[clangers]

Yeah Zigz - really strange the whole line in the sand thing on a couple million under the circumstances. I just don't get it - especially after announcing him as signed - just weird. I don't know if I buy into the Ayre cocked it up but I do wonder if there was a miscommunication along the way. I don't believe Rogers offered half the players on the squad up in a pick 'em for Clint Dempsey.

For me, they have gotten so much right in terms of mindset, revenue, carving out the deadwood and even this window with a couple really nice players and a few bargains of the kind we should have been getting for years (whether they pan out, who knows.)

All that momentum and then to piss it away in the 11th hour, over 2 or 3 mil - just seems strange.

 

The who episode is strange to say the least. I find it very, very difficult to believe that the day before the transfer window closes our manager would allow Carroll to be loaned without being 100% certain that a replacement would be coming in.

 

FSG's behaviour seems equally strange given the way we handled the Dempsey transfer and Werner's comments about Dempsey. The fact that we chose to leave the transfer of a player we'd been courting publicly for several months to the last day of the transfer is equally odd. The moment we mistakenly put the article up online was the moment to resolve the transfer.

 

Just smacks of a complete breakdown in communication between our manager, managing director and owners. Really not great. If the suggesting is true, that our manager did not have the same interpretation of our transfer budget as our owners then this might explain the strange behaviour over the last couple of weeks. Our manager might well have assumed he had a larger budget available to him than in reality and given last years spending FSG chose to stick strictly to that budget.

[TheHowieLama]

Certainly they've been wrong on the more than just this. For me it unraveled in the manager search cuz although they got who I think they wanted - after three major firings in 18 months it just looked unfocused though I think probably to them felt thorough. They also need to just shut it when it comes to their plans cuz the only thing that can happen is they go wrong. I think this has been done to appease a fanbase whose belief is they have a right to know the business and financial positions of the club. Rather than the predictable "underpromising and overdelivering" enema, they should have promised nothing and kept mum on any and all plans moving forward.

[Whelan]

Whelan won't read it, because he already knows what everyone thinks without them saying so, and he believes you're either for or against the owners and can't have compex opinions such as not wanting rid of them or wanting them to spend Abramovich style money but just wanting them to fork out a small amount of money to get the manager one of the two forwards they promised him, or wanting them not to make idiots of both themselves and the manager in the press.

 

For Whelan, like many on here now, you have to have allegiance to some imaginary "side" and can't just want the best for the club.

 

It's tiresome, pointless, and why most discussions on this forum are no longer worth bothering with.

 

Whelan did read it, and Whelan agrees with it. But Whelan has been called and apologist and has some shitty negs (away from the public eye) regarding it, so he may be a little bit pissed with being called an apologist for the same reasons you are pissed at being called on wanting an Abramovich.

 

If that is what you think I accussed you off then I can only apologise to you, because that is not what I was trying to say at all.

 

I just think there is a difference between being vigilant and cynical and what we are seeing this past few months, is just not doing anyone any favours at all.

 

As I say, they have done a lot of good. And they have made mistakes but comparisons to those two are not just way off the mark, they are quite offensive, those two willfully put the clubs future in doubt for their own means.

 

But I do apologise if I came accross as a cunt last night, that wasn't what I was trying to do. I don't take back what I said, but clearly I could have said it a lot better and without the aggression.

[xerxes]

They have got a lot right, and also a lot more than just this wrong. I realise and appreciate that we can't go hounding owners out of the club every time we disagree with them, but we can and should hold them to account when they get things wrong. They don't get a free ride simply for buying the club on the cheap, or at least as with Dalglish after a time, the honeymoon period is well and truly over.

 

All fair comment.

 

FSG offered us solvency, which as Rangers have demonstrated is no bad thing. But I suspect that solvency will be as good as it gets.

 

In a quiet moment I have reflected how I would get on trying to restore a fallen baseball side to its former glory, while living in Liverpool then visiting Boston once every couple of months – then I awake from the nightmare.

[Gym Beglin]

The problem is 'owners'.

Not necessarily 'the owners', but just 'owners' in general.

Why would any company, or person, with money, come to Liverpool and invest? They want money back. We're not like Sunderland or West Ham, teams where you can invest £15m a season and that will satisfy the fans and their expectations. We demand £50m, more in some cases, and it's totally unrealistic, because they'd be making a loss, or a very slender profit. Certainly not worth the aggro that comes with owning this club.

I dont blame FSG, they're just like any other 'owner'.

 

Either we accept this, and knuckle down and get the playing side of things right. But it would be a long-term fix.

Or SOS can stop moaning about FSG, and instead they could write letters to all the saudi princes and russian ogliarchs they know, and beg them to buy us this January.

[Tyler Durden]

A few years ago I think it would have been feasible to be successful while living within our means but I don't think it's possible now with all the money involved, especially as we missed a trick years back not getting the stadium built.

[xerxes]

The problem is 'owners'.

Not necessarily 'the owners', but just 'owners' in general.

Why would any company, or person, with money, come to Liverpool and invest? They want money back. We're not like Sunderland or West Ham, teams where you can invest £15m a season and that will satisfy the fans and their expectations. We demand £50m, more in some cases, and it's totally unrealistic, because they'd be making a loss, or a very slender profit. Certainly not worth the aggro that comes with owning this club.

I dont blame FSG, they're just like any other 'owner'.

 

Either we accept this, and knuckle down and get the playing side of things right. But it would be a long-term fix.

Or SOS can stop moaning about FSG, and instead they could write letters to all the saudi princes and russian ogliarchs they know, and beg them to buy us this January.

 

I agree with that up to a point.

 

I think it is about why owners own- rather than owners in general.

 

Abrahamovic’s interest in Chelsea was multi-dimensional. He wanted a base in London and a profile which would make him less physically vulnerable to attack and arrest in Russia. He wanted a western base to run his business interests. As a billionaire he can indulge his interests, which include football- which is key. He might be mad with managers but he is indisputably a football fan. All those things transcend a football profit and loss account.

 

Mansour is building a platform for an entire country, and taking a stake in a sport which will only increase in value in the Middle East with the World Cup on the horizon. Again- he actually likes, and understands the game. But like Abrahamovic those interests transcends the profit and loss account at Man City.

 

FSG know nothing about the game, and as an investment group, the ONLY criteria is profit and loss. Now I do believe that there was also a dimension of taking a stake in the business of a sport which is growing globally and giving them a foothold in the European sports market, but that is very different from the other two. FSG are looking for windfall growth, the others are looking to invest to use the Clubs as flagships ( very successfully so far).

 

I am grateful to FSg for saving us, and making us solvent.. However I will continue to expose the image of smart savvy businessmen that they like to portray, when in football management terms they have been a bit of a joke.

[Faustus]

A few years ago I think it would have been feasible to be successful while living within our means but I don't think it's possible now with all the money involved, especially as we missed a trick years back not getting the stadium built.

 

That's exactly the most frustrating thing, mate. If we had our heads screwed on in the early 90s, we'd be untouchable right now like the Mancs, Barca and Real are. There wouldn't be the clamour for a sugar daddy because we'd be self sufficient to the extent that we wouldn't need one. We'd be laughing.

[Evil_Ways]

Dont know much about business law. But in theory, could FSG put, say 49% of the club up for sale ?

Sell that share for whatever amount, thus generating funds for the club and still be in control ?

[xerxes]

Dont know much about business law. But in theory, could FSG put, say 49% of the club up for sale ?

Sell that share for whatever amount, thus generating funds for the club and still be in control ?

 

Then ask yourself who buys the 49%.

 

If it is a handful of buyers, why invest tens of millions of pounds, far more than any FSG investor has put in- to have no control or influence?

 

If it is fans/ private investors again, why put in money for no dividend or leverage? You can moan for free now.

 

Crucially, if you did have the money as a private or individual investor, would you invest with FSG in charge? You should reasonably ask ;“if they have the money personally ( which they have), and are not prepared to put that in, or underwrite borrowings, why should I?”

[Evil_Ways]

Then ask yourself who buys the 49%.

 

If it is a handful of buyers, why invest tens of millions of pounds, far more than any FSG investor has put in- to have no control or influence?

 

If it is fans/ private investors again, why put in money for no dividend or leverage? You can moan for free now.

 

Crucially, if you did have the money as a private or individual investor, would you invest with FSG in charge? You should reasonably ask ;“if they have the money personally ( which they have), and are not prepared to put that in, or underwrite borrowings, why should I?”

 

 

Well, the fans supposedly loves the club and would not invest to make money. But rather to help out and get a small stake in something that means a lot to them. A million shares à £200, if sold generates £200m.

 

Not saying that it's feasible, but not saying that it isn't either, at least not on a smaller scale, at, i don't know 10-20% initially. While the fan owned part would not have final say on anything at least having a stronger voice and board representation. Long term a Barcelona structure could be the goal.

[xerxes]

Well, the fans supposedly loves the club and would not invest to make money. But rather to help out and get a small stake in something that means a lot to them. A million shares à £200, if sold generates £200m.

 

Not saying that it's feasible, but not saying that it isn't either, at least not on a smaller scale, at, i don't know 10-20% initially. While the fan owned part would not have final say on anything at least having a stronger voice and board representation. Long term a Barcelona structure could be the goal.

 

When we were on our knees, and the club could have been bought at its cheapest, no critical mass to buy the club from fans, or a stake in it emerged. The same thing happened at Rangers.

 

Are fans investing because they love the club- or are they bailing out the owners and helping them to make money?

 

Your final para is the most powerful argument against the scheme from FSG’s point of view. They don’t want a Barca model, they don’t want a fan stake, and they don’t want a Trojan horse with the tail wagging the dog.

 

I love the idea of fan ownership. The German model is excellent. But I am certain that FSG will want to keep it tight, and I doubt whether the history of SOS will give them much confidence about the upsides of fan ownership for them.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Not fan ownership again.........

[Gym Beglin]

Dont know much about business law. But in theory, could FSG put, say 49% of the club up for sale ?

Sell that share for whatever amount, thus generating funds for the club and still be in control ?

 

They can.

However, they likely won't, because they already have 14 investors within FSG, and so adding another 1, 2, 3 or 5,000 investors into the pot would make life very difficult in terms of making decisions.

FSG could sell 49% of the club to the fans, and this is what SoS are pushing for. However, it's still a minority share. It would also strengthen SoS because they would act as the unofficial 'union' of those fans, whereas actually the majority of SoS might not even buy shares.

[Cliff T. Beast]

Not fan ownership again.........

 

Especially with some of the dribbling idiots we have supporting us!

[Dan Vito Corleone]

It's just a bad idea, a total utopian fantasy that isn't going to happen.

[The Acolyte]

Resigned then, the point was he wasn't a mistake. He wasn't a horrendous England manager like you said, he was actually quite good.

 

Levy is the owner and Chairman of Spurs. The owner that has gone through 11 managers (temp and full time) in the 11 years he's been there. He's also been brilliant at negotiating transfers hasn't he? What they seem to do is pay the asking price for players we want but can't afford.

 

No he's not. He's the CEO of the British division of ENIC who own Spurs.

The dude that owns ENIC, some Brit Billionaire. Thats the money behind spurs, not Levy.

[piscinin]

No he's not. He's the CEO of the British division of ENIC who own Spurs.

The dude that owns ENIC, some Brit Billionaire. Thats the money behind spurs, not Levy.

 

Levy owns about a 1/3rd of Enic.

[xerxes]

They can.

However, they likely won't, because they already have 14 investors within FSG

 

My understanding is that originally there were 19 investors, Lebron James was added, NYT came out, but their shares were sold to multiple buyers. Whether those are in addition to the aforementioned, or were shared between some, or all, of the remainder is unclear.

 

The detail of the exact shreholdings and the real powerbrokers remains unclear. What is certain is that Henry and Werner were not, individually, or collectively described as majority shareholders originally- although Henry's acquisition of some of the NYT's 17.75% may have changed that.

[cmuller]

and they don’t want a Trojan horse with the tail wagging the dog.

 

 

Who does?

[silverlining]

A Trojan horse with the tail wagging the dog

 

You hilarious, stupid cunt. We've had this chat before: the more you try and sound clever, the more idiotic you seem.

[DT]

Not fan ownership again.........

 

What a brilliant idea. Now all we need is someone to lead the bid...