The Official Liverpool FC Thread [Vol 10]
Discussion
m3sye said:
I am not sure it will cost them that much, they have sold all their corporate already and the stand is going to get named - I imagine that will be a decent amount of money
I am not knocking them as they really have stablised us etc but my question will always be does the net spend show they as soon as stand etc is done they will look to sell? I think they would easily treble their investment not bad on a 300m investment
I agree i think they are decent owners, we were a wiser away from going bust, so for that they will always be thanked. But yes net spend should be higher, hence i wondered if keeping powder dryI am not knocking them as they really have stablised us etc but my question will always be does the net spend show they as soon as stand etc is done they will look to sell? I think they would easily treble their investment not bad on a 300m investment
Tom Hicks called the sale "and epic swindle." Whilst I can't agree with that, he was SO pissed off as he knew he had almost pulled it off and he was only a year or so away from the Promised Land.
Even with this TV deal some credible industry analysts think there is at least one more round of massive increases in the TV/Media rights. Overseas rights could still be under valued, even with the upcoming deal.
So, in my opinion, if FSG wanted us to win the league they could easily spend 200 million NET + the wages and still be up on the deal. But they are running the club on a prudent basis - I am not really knocking them for it it's just the way it is.
And it's bit sad when all the "banter" is about how a club deals with transfers and how much they have spent/wasted. I mean, who really gives a s
t hoe much money the club makes?
Even with this TV deal some credible industry analysts think there is at least one more round of massive increases in the TV/Media rights. Overseas rights could still be under valued, even with the upcoming deal.
So, in my opinion, if FSG wanted us to win the league they could easily spend 200 million NET + the wages and still be up on the deal. But they are running the club on a prudent basis - I am not really knocking them for it it's just the way it is.
And it's bit sad when all the "banter" is about how a club deals with transfers and how much they have spent/wasted. I mean, who really gives a s
t hoe much money the club makes?I think FSG nor H&G care much for the club other than how much money it would make them.
At least FSG put their own money in to buy the club, though I'm not sure H&G can be accused of a swindle. Plenty of people mortgage their businesses and pay back the banks through their business income.
At least FSG put their own money in to buy the club, though I'm not sure H&G can be accused of a swindle. Plenty of people mortgage their businesses and pay back the banks through their business income.
Well I'm not going into chapter and verse - but claiming they weren't loading debt on the club when that was exactly what they DID do, could be seen as a swindle. Read the book and then tell me they weren't con men. Seriously.
FSG are a long way from that. And no, the club is just a business to them - 1 they want to make a success. That's all one can really hope for in the 21st century, it would seem.
FSG are a long way from that. And no, the club is just a business to them - 1 they want to make a success. That's all one can really hope for in the 21st century, it would seem.
I think FSG definition of success and a fan's definition is not the same.
I don't think loading an asset you buy with debth and then have that asset pay off the loan is a swindle. It's just business. If Moores had made his own money rather than inherited it he might have had the nouce to do the same.
I don't think loading an asset you buy with debth and then have that asset pay off the loan is a swindle. It's just business. If Moores had made his own money rather than inherited it he might have had the nouce to do the same.
RedTrident said:
I think FSG definition of success and a fan's definition is not the same.
I don't think loading an asset you buy with debth and then have that asset pay off the loan is a swindle. It's just business. If Moores had made his own money rather than inherited it he might have had the nouce to do the same.
But most businesses don't have customers who provide an income to seek entertainment and that income should ultimately used to then enhance the entertainment experience but the existence of the debt actually reduces the experience as the entertainment is not of sufficient value.I don't think loading an asset you buy with debth and then have that asset pay off the loan is a swindle. It's just business. If Moores had made his own money rather than inherited it he might have had the nouce to do the same.
In short the fans were paying for the experience but the owners were getting the reward.
At least make an effort with the income to try and enhance the outcome, hence FSG are doing something beneficial.
My reference to Hicks and "epic swindle" was referring to something he accused the directors of when they sold the company from under him in concert with RBS to FSG.
Football is a fascinating business, but I don't follow the team to be interested in how it is run.
I really don't care.
I want the team to play well, and if they are playing poorly I want them not to capitulate.
It's increasingly difficult to support a side made up of players that will probably be off elsewhere if they do well.
This doesn't just apply to Liverpool either.
Football is a fascinating business, but I don't follow the team to be interested in how it is run.
I really don't care.
I want the team to play well, and if they are playing poorly I want them not to capitulate.
It's increasingly difficult to support a side made up of players that will probably be off elsewhere if they do well.
This doesn't just apply to Liverpool either.
desolate said:
My reference to Hicks and "epic swindle" was referring to something he accused the directors of when they sold the company from under him in concert with RBS to FSG.
Realise that - just telling you he was the one taking the club for a ride. And almost certain bankruptcy. The debt was loaded on teh club remember - he would have just walked away. desolate said:
Type R - Fair point and I agree. I was referring to all the discussion surrounding transfers and "great bit of business" etc etc
Flip Martian - I was clarifying a comment from someone above who said the "i am not sure that G&G could be accused of a swindle."
Ah yeah - I thought he was replying to me, to be honest. No worries.Flip Martian - I was clarifying a comment from someone above who said the "i am not sure that G&G could be accused of a swindle."
For those complaining about the quality of Allen; he may soon be part of the second best international team in the world. Not sure how you can question his quality then, 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34150058
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34150058
desolate said:
Flip Martian - I was clarifying a comment from someone above who said the "i am not sure that G&G could be accused of a swindle."
Swindle - use deception to deprive (someone) of money or possessions or a fraudulent scheme or action.I'd have imagined they'd have been locked up if it was a swindle. I'm no fan of H&G, but what they did I never considered to be a swindle. I'd also think I was being swindled if the bank sold my business from under me even though I was making the payments on time every month, especially if I knew that if I could hold out for another 2 years I'd treble my money.
H&G were very poor owners because they over promised and under delivered, failed to get the new stadium built and fell out with Rafa. They also clearly took the piss with the expenses they ran through the company. The rest of it is just emotion.
You could argue that, by saying they wouldn't load the club with debt in order to appear the better potential buyers in the sale process, and then doing exactly what they said they wouldn't could be defined as fraudulent. Extreme definition I agree, and "swindle" doesn't really sit well with me either.
I'm just glad we have owners that are building the club sustainably and finally getting the stadium situation sorted too. If they happen to make some money at the same time then so be it.
If you were renting a house and the landlord redecorated and stuck a big extension on the side, you wouldn't complain that they were "only doing it for the profit".
I'm just glad we have owners that are building the club sustainably and finally getting the stadium situation sorted too. If they happen to make some money at the same time then so be it.
If you were renting a house and the landlord redecorated and stuck a big extension on the side, you wouldn't complain that they were "only doing it for the profit".
RedTrident said:
desolate said:
Flip Martian - I was clarifying a comment from someone above who said the "i am not sure that G&G could be accused of a swindle."
Swindle - use deception to deprive (someone) of money or possessions or a fraudulent scheme or action.I'd have imagined they'd have been locked up if it was a swindle. I'm no fan of H&G, but what they did I never considered to be a swindle. I'd also think I was being swindled if the bank sold my business from under me even though I was making the payments on time every month, especially if I knew that if I could hold out for another 2 years I'd treble my money.
H&G were very poor owners because they over promised and under delivered, failed to get the new stadium built and fell out with Rafa. They also clearly took the piss with the expenses they ran through the company. The rest of it is just emotion.
They were poor owners as they bought the club under deception for their own gains and this isn't some subjective opinion or emotion (as you say) this is objective legal fact.
RedTrident said:
Swindle - use deception to deprive (someone) of money or possessions or a fraudulent scheme or action.
I'd have imagined they'd have been locked up if it was a swindle. I'm no fan of H&G, but what they did I never considered to be a swindle. I'd also think I was being swindled if the bank sold my business from under me even though I was making the payments on time every month, especially if I knew that if I could hold out for another 2 years I'd treble my money.
H&G were very poor owners because they over promised and under delivered, failed to get the new stadium built and fell out with Rafa. They also clearly took the piss with the expenses they ran through the company. The rest of it is just emotion.
John 11:35I'd have imagined they'd have been locked up if it was a swindle. I'm no fan of H&G, but what they did I never considered to be a swindle. I'd also think I was being swindled if the bank sold my business from under me even though I was making the payments on time every month, especially if I knew that if I could hold out for another 2 years I'd treble my money.
H&G were very poor owners because they over promised and under delivered, failed to get the new stadium built and fell out with Rafa. They also clearly took the piss with the expenses they ran through the company. The rest of it is just emotion.
I was posting on my phone so forgive me if I wasn't clear. I meant H&G rather than G&G.
Tom Hicks accused the board and RBS and FSG of an epic swindle. I would imagine it's quite a well known statement for a follower of LFC board room shenanigans.
So read the post, cross reference what is said instead of pontificating like the boring teat that your internet persona is.
I did read the post, and as ever there is no need whatsoever to personally insult another poster.
I would think I've been swindled if the bank took my business off me when I'd been making all the payments. I never understood the close to bankruptcy stuff either.
On a parallel issue, if H&G promised not to load the team with debth as part of the agreement when they bought the club, did FSG not also say they'd build a new stadium when they bought the club? It seems what you say before and what you do after you've bought the club was a PR exercise in both cases.
I would think I've been swindled if the bank took my business off me when I'd been making all the payments. I never understood the close to bankruptcy stuff either.
On a parallel issue, if H&G promised not to load the team with debth as part of the agreement when they bought the club, did FSG not also say they'd build a new stadium when they bought the club? It seems what you say before and what you do after you've bought the club was a PR exercise in both cases.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff