They are business men, I'm sure if the right offer came in, then they would of course sell. However, I too wouldn't want to be a city or chavs of this world. If you have a wage cap and still target young players, the money could be used correctly, not giving someone £250k a week, then a few more players and then the club only survives because of the owners. Anyway, I don't believe this for a second.
Yes! Would absolutely love it to be true - as long as they have the money. Nothing against FSG who kept us afloat, but I'm not convinced they gave enough dough. Surprised it would be true given the fact the stadium is underway.
Utter bo!!0x. Glasers bought Manure and loaded the debt on the club. Manure are saddled with massive interest payments wheras FSG bought Liverpool principally debt free.
Tbh the stadium might be a trigger for a sale. FSG may want to avoid becoming another Arsenal - unable to spend on players whilst repaying a large stadium debt. So it would make business sense to sell to a cash rich investor who could pay for the stadium without debt, leaving the club free to spend the new cash however it wants. And now work has started, the selling price of the club can be increased based on the expected increase in future cash flows from the extra seats, so FSG could boost the value of the club without having to actually bear the costs of the expansion. I'm not saying that it's true - it's almost certainly not given that the FSG sale rumours appear almost every time Liverpool are struggling to perform. But I wouldn't be surprised if FSG considered at least selling a partial stake in Liverpool to fund the new stadium without debt, a bit like the Glazers did to pay off some of Utd's debt when they did a partial float.
True but nearly all owners are looking to make money out of the arrangement. FSG were always going to make money considering how little they paid in the first place.
Also explains the lack of debt they incurred. Glazers bought Utd for £800m with £500m of debt, so paid £300m in cash. FSG bought Liverpool for £300m with no debt, so paid £300m in cash. The only difference between the two sets of owners is the price of the club they bought, and the ability of the club to actually support any debt and remain successful.
What did they do when they came in at Liverpool....made sweeping cuts. They have stopped the idea of a new ground and have made the minimum investment they can in the current ground.....is this coming from the owners pockets? I think you need to look into how they are making a ROI and then come back to me
United can support the debt and would also sell for a price that will clear the debt and also turn a nice profit for the owners
Very true. I've always said that the party most to blame for the Glazers was the plc. Had they been running Utd efficiently and making best use of the brand then the club would have been valued so highly that there would have been no money the Glazers could make. As it is, the Glazers could sell up at the current price, clear all the debt, and probably walk off with a cool billion in the bank. In fact, to be fair to the Glazers, they are actually allowing the club to spend most of the money instead of pocketing it and walking off.
Just doesn't account for the £100m they gave Kenny and £200m for Brod (yes, I know we sold players too)
Actually LFC were bought for 200mil... 300mil is way over the RBS loan that G&H defaulted on. And the glaziers bought utd for 0... the only investment they made was in shares to get up to takeover level they then lumped very ounce of the debt on utd and also took out a lot of cash as a bonus so every penny they sell up for is profit to them. Utd don't need a rich owner, they are rich... that is reality. if they were floated publically again they would be able to compete at the top and turn a profit. BTW arsenal can too... arsenal have 2/3 vultures in their board room hoping to turn it into a glazier type deal. thats why wneger will never be moved. however its not true to talk about arsenal unable to spend while paying for a stadium. they simply chose not to due to wnger insisting his kids were tops. they had 50mil in the pocket any time they wanted to invest. As for Pj's bolloxology... he wants to look at his own club before talking about crap he knows nowt about. FSG took over a basket case and were quite wise to make cuts... paying top 4 wages in 8th place = a club heading the leeds way... and the stadium was pie in the sky and took massive losses to be written off that FSG put interest free loans in to cover which PJ conveniently forgets. FSG are sensible about it. If they can defray the cost and make a profit well and good.... for them. I thought at the time that the fee RBS asked was frankly a steal for anyone and if they can basically throw up a 58k stadium for 100-150mil which is basically covered by tv money even better However..... I still maintain this story is fake cos gold and sullivan have been waiting to sell west ham for years on the basis of stealing the olympic stadium out from under the people of london.
BOLLOXOLOGY....I like that, do you think I dont know our owners are in it for profit? The figures are different but the two clubs are being milked for a profit....united are different and can sustain this milking The money given to Rodgers and Kenny was not from their pockets....it was from revenue generated by the club and player sales. Much the same as transfer funds at Goodison, or do you think robert Earl dishes out money left, right and everywhere
They won't but West Ham cos you don't the stadium or any land. You get a 99 year lease on the stadium as primary tenant on favourable terms but you don't see any money from non-football related events held in it and you only get a slice of any naming rights deal. Most of that and the other income goes to the legacy company responsible for managing it post-Olympics. As for the land, that is the Queen Elizabeth park and you'd have no claim on any it. The Legacy company saw the schisters that own West ham coming and the rival bid form Spurs strengthened their position, so they didn't have to bend over for West Ham. Also, the stadium is absolute an fooking dog-turd of a stadium for watching football. The West Ham fans have been sold a turkey! Given Liverpool's global appeal and the already strong position of London rivals, it's a no-brainer, that they are a better long term bet than West Ham.
Who claimed otherwise...? Aren't you the one suggesting the owners are looking to make a profit yet clearly point out those profits are going back into the club?
True, but how much of that was actually money FSG put in, and how much was from the club's own revenues? Either way, total amount is a heck of a lot less than the Glazers paid for Utd! No, the total value of all the shares the Glazers bought in Utd was close to £800m. That's from the very first share they bought to the very last. Total initial debt incurred by Utd as a result was £500m. Therefore the missing £250m-300m came from the Glazers, either in cash or their own external financing. Also add the £200m of PIK loans which were cleared off by the Glazers without taking cash from the club itself. The Glazers themselves have actually taken very little out of Utd in cash, mostly just salaries and director loans, no dividends. The only cash they have generated for themselves is from the sale of their own shares. Although they'll still make an absolute killing thanks to the huge increase in the value of the club since they bought us. Arsenal had £50m in the bank whilst financing the Emirates, but their loan covenants prohibited them from spending it. As it was a speculative deal, with the funds being repaid by the development of Highbury as flats, the lenders forced them to hold a chunk of cash in case the flats sold whilst the market was in the tank. Just meant Wenger had more money to spunk up the wall once they actually got the debt repaid. LFC may face the same thing, but probably not as the repayment of the debt won't be predicated on selling other assets.
Which is why I put the bit in brackets. We've sold Torres and Suarez in that time plus various other less valued players. We've also vastly increased the commercial income not to mention the increased TV money and this year's anticipated CL money as well. There is plenty coming in but as least as much going out too. I said prior to FSG arriving that I wanted a owner that would run the club in a self-sustaining debt free manner and look into the stadium situation. Can't complain since they've done exactly that and you won't catch me being ungrateful like certain posters
which is why i said they had to buy the initial shares... you saying that the glaziers didn't harvest out 300mil or more in their time? every loan they had for that they got moeny form you to pay. anyway.. you should know I am still suspicious.
the amount of loans with zero interest given by FSG to LFC are on record in the accounts. they didn't put all that much in but they put enough in to pay the gap between revenue and expenditure while the club did make those cuts of wages etc etc.. and write of the money spent on a pie i nthe sky stadium designed by g&H to attract arab money. 40-50million or so. I wouldnt worry about PJ he doesn't care what anyone says back to him, he's only out for a rise.... he'll ignore any reasoned stuff and pick at something silly just to twist stuff his way... then his mates will turn in as well.
Any rumour stems from this http://uaescene.com/ViewArticle.aspx?Title=Al-Maktoum-to-Buy-Out-Liverpool-FC
