Liverpool FC Forum

Do they really have more money than us ? We seem to earn a considerable amount more than them every year.

Yes they have spent £60mil or so improving their squad on first 11 quality players - we have spent £24mil on squad players whilst our first 11 is in need if significant improvements.

How is BR expected to improve the team/squad and our position in the league with a transfer budget based on players leaving and at the same time our rivals spend money on quality players. Even teams like Norwich , Southampton , Swansea have spent more this summer.

What is BR supposed to do ? According to Shakter it seems we didnt even make a bid for the player to the club - Ayre was apparently only talking to an agent. Then for the next deal it appears its Billy Hogan doing the negotiating ! Our bids our rumoured between £17mil and 25mil - do we really expect clubs to sell when we put in low bids ? Comolli may have overspent but we appear to be going the other way now.

Who is deciding all these matters ? Who is deciding if a player is worth the money - BR obviously think the players are - our rivals think the player is worth it - who in our club is deciding they aren't worth it ? A money man ?

Rodgers press conference in full

http://prev.lfc.vn/s14-w02-preview-villa/

Where is the bit in the press conference that BR supposedly says that Willian would have been a perfect fit and that it is the owners money? Did I miss something?

devaney » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:58 pm wrote:They actually made a loss of over £50m in their first years trading. That is a meaningful sum of money and a lousy return on an investment of £300m. If they want LFC to be self sustainable then the money isn't going to just magically appear. We could go down the route of massive debt but that also has its obvious problems. You only have to rewind to the days of H & G to recognise what a disaster that can be. We are not owned by a company that has endless amounts of money and anybody expecting  Henry to use his own money is being deluded. He worked very hard to achieve his success so why should he watch his personal fortune potentially disappear by investing in a football club.

john henry did not buy us on his own so he was never going to be asked or indeed expected to dip in to his own personal fortune for anything.
fenway sports group are a private company who specialise in sports investment and it was their money that purchased the club. henry might be the major shareholder but there is several others that are apart of that group, ie: werner and lebron james to name 2 and they all are collecting some sort of dividend every year off us. fsg have quite a portfolio built up of sports business and recently purchased a newspaper so i dont know how you can conclude that they have no money.
H&G's model was not sustainable because of the way they did business as in one company lends money to another who in turn lends that to another and then eventually ending up in the clubs coffers. each company increased the lending rate and we ended up getting a loan with silly interest attached. combine that with the leveraged buyout of the club and we were unsustainable. they were useless businessmen and it would never work under them. if they actually paid some of the loans they had rather than continually refinancing they would still be here.
how do we know that they arent charging us interest for the loan to buy the club? what kind of timeframe is in place to recoup that investment ? what kind of salaries are they taking for the odd appearance here and there?. the reason why i mention this is because they could be fleecing us behind the scenes. you seem to think that they are hero's because they somehow saved us from extinction that was never, ever, ever, ever going to happen. i see them as opportunistic vultures who bought a business for much less than it was worth and are looking for maximum return for minimal investment which is great for them but not for us.
at the moment i find it hard not to agree with purslow's comments about them being bottom of the barrel. he also said they wont deliver a stadium and they have already said they will not fund it on their own. in fact one of the first things they did when they took over was scrap the plans that they inherited in the purchase price and heap the cost on to the club. they didnt pay for them but are making us pay twice and probably for a new set as well that might never even see a hole being dug.
this kind of spending they are looking to do i would have no bother with if a stadium was being constructed but it isnt. football is an expensive business and they never should have entered it if they arent willing to invest unless all they want is a quick buck which i hope is what they are looking for.

red till i die!! » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:18 pm wrote:

devaney » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:58 pm wrote:They actually made a loss of over £50m in their first years trading. That is a meaningful sum of money and a lousy return on an investment of £300m. If they want LFC to be self sustainable then the money isn't going to just magically appear. We could go down the route of massive debt but that also has its obvious problems. You only have to rewind to the days of H & G to recognise what a disaster that can be. We are not owned by a company that has endless amounts of money and anybody expecting  Henry to use his own money is being deluded. He worked very hard to achieve his success so why should he watch his personal fortune potentially disappear by investing in a football club.

john henry did not buy us on his own so he was never going to be asked or indeed expected to dip in to his own personal fortune for anything.
fenway sports group are a private company who specialise in sports investment and it was their money that purchased the club. henry might be the major shareholder but there is several others that are apart of that group, ie: werner and lebron james to name 2 and they all are collecting some sort of dividend every year off us. fsg have quite a portfolio built up of sports business and recently purchased a newspaper so i dont know how you can conclude that they have no money.
H&G's model was not sustainable because of the way they did business as in one company lends money to another who in turn lends that to another and then eventually ending up in the clubs coffers. each company increased the lending rate and we ended up getting a loan with silly interest attached. combine that with the leveraged buyout of the club and we were unsustainable. they were useless businessmen and it would never work under them. if they actually paid some of the loans they had rather than continually refinancing they would still be here.
how do we know that they arent charging us interest for the loan to buy the club? what kind of timeframe is in place to recoup that investment ? what kind of salaries are they taking for the odd appearance here and there?. the reason why i mention this is because they could be fleecing us behind the scenes. you seem to think that they are hero's because they somehow saved us from extinction that was never, ever, ever, ever going to happen. i see them as opportunistic vultures who bought a business for much less than it was worth and are looking for maximum return for minimal investment which is great for them but not for us.
at the moment i find it hard not to agree with purslow's comments about them being bottom of the barrel. he also said they wont deliver a stadium and they have already said they will not fund it on their own. in fact one of the first things they did when they took over was scrap the plans that they inherited in the purchase price and heap the cost on to the club. they didnt pay for them but are making us pay twice and probably for a new set as well that might never even see a hole being dug.
this kind of spending they are looking to do i would have no bother with if a stadium was being constructed but it isnt. football is an expensive business and they never should have entered it if they arent willing to invest unless all they want is a quick buck which i hope is what they are looking for.

nail met head!

red till i die!! » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:18 pm wrote:

devaney » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:58 pm wrote:They actually made a loss of over £50m in their first years trading. That is a meaningful sum of money and a lousy return on an investment of £300m. If they want LFC to be self sustainable then the money isn't going to just magically appear. We could go down the route of massive debt but that also has its obvious problems. You only have to rewind to the days of H & G to recognise what a disaster that can be. We are not owned by a company that has endless amounts of money and anybody expecting  Henry to use his own money is being deluded. He worked very hard to achieve his success so why should he watch his personal fortune potentially disappear by investing in a football club.

john henry did not buy us on his own so he was never going to be asked or indeed expected to dip in to his own personal fortune for anything.
fenway sports group are a private company who specialise in sports investment and it was their money that purchased the club. henry might be the major shareholder but there is several others that are apart of that group, ie: werner and lebron james to name 2 and they all are collecting some sort of dividend every year off us. fsg have quite a portfolio built up of sports business and recently purchased a newspaper so i dont know how you can conclude that they have no money.
H&G's model was not sustainable because of the way they did business as in one company lends money to another who in turn lends that to another and then eventually ending up in the clubs coffers. each company increased the lending rate and we ended up getting a loan with silly interest attached. combine that with the leveraged buyout of the club and we were unsustainable. they were useless businessmen and it would never work under them. if they actually paid some of the loans they had rather than continually refinancing they would still be here.
how do we know that they arent charging us interest for the loan to buy the club? what kind of timeframe is in place to recoup that investment ? what kind of salaries are they taking for the odd appearance here and there?. the reason why i mention this is because they could be fleecing us behind the scenes. you seem to think that they are hero's because they somehow saved us from extinction that was never, ever, ever, ever going to happen. i see them as opportunistic vultures who bought a business for much less than it was worth and are looking for maximum return for minimal investment which is great for them but not for us.
at the moment i find it hard not to agree with purslow's comments about them being bottom of the barrel. he also said they wont deliver a stadium and they have already said they will not fund it on their own. in fact one of the first things they did when they took over was scrap the plans that they inherited in the purchase price and heap the cost on to the club. they didnt pay for them but are making us pay twice and probably for a new set as well that might never even see a hole being dug.
this kind of spending they are looking to do i would have no bother with if a stadium was being constructed but it isnt. football is an expensive business and they never should have entered it if they arent willing to invest unless all they want is a quick buck which i hope is what they are looking for.

Putting a lot of words in my mouth there mate: Where did I say that FSG have no money? H & G's model was unsustainable but to suggest they were useless businessmen is naive. They are both billionaires and that does not happen through being idiots or indeed useless. Horrible  fkrs yes - useless I don't think so.

Where is the evidence of FSG being opportunist vultures?

Work is progressing with the stadium so I'm not sure what you are

stmichael » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:22 pm wrote:Rodgers press conference in full

http://prev.lfc.vn/s14-w02-preview-villa/

He looks ill.

devaney » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:57 pm wrote:

red till i die!! » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:18 pm wrote:

devaney » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:58 pm wrote:They actually made a loss of over £50m in their first years trading. That is a meaningful sum of money and a lousy return on an investment of £300m. If they want LFC to be self sustainable then the money isn't going to just magically appear. We could go down the route of massive debt but that also has its obvious problems. You only have to rewind to the days of H & G to recognise what a disaster that can be. We are not owned by a company that has endless amounts of money and anybody expecting  Henry to use his own money is being deluded. He worked very hard to achieve his success so why should he watch his personal fortune potentially disappear by investing in a football club.

john henry did not buy us on his own so he was never going to be asked or indeed expected to dip in to his own personal fortune for anything.
fenway sports group are a private company who specialise in sports investment and it was their money that purchased the club. henry might be the major shareholder but there is several others that are apart of that group, ie: werner and lebron james to name 2 and they all are collecting some sort of dividend every year off us. fsg have quite a portfolio built up of sports business and recently purchased a newspaper so i dont know how you can conclude that they have no money.
H&G's model was not sustainable because of the way they did business as in one company lends money to another who in turn lends that to another and then eventually ending up in the clubs coffers. each company increased the lending rate and we ended up getting a loan with silly interest attached. combine that with the leveraged buyout of the club and we were unsustainable. they were useless businessmen and it would never work under them. if they actually paid some of the loans they had rather than continually refinancing they would still be here.
how do we know that they arent charging us interest for the loan to buy the club? what kind of timeframe is in place to recoup that investment ? what kind of salaries are they taking for the odd appearance here and there?. the reason why i mention this is because they could be fleecing us behind the scenes. you seem to think that they are hero's because they somehow saved us from extinction that was never, ever, ever, ever going to happen. i see them as opportunistic vultures who bought a business for much less than it was worth and are looking for maximum return for minimal investment which is great for them but not for us.
at the moment i find it hard not to agree with purslow's comments about them being bottom of the barrel. he also said they wont deliver a stadium and they have already said they will not fund it on their own. in fact one of the first things they did when they took over was scrap the plans that they inherited in the purchase price and heap the cost on to the club. they didnt pay for them but are making us pay twice and probably for a new set as well that might never even see a hole being dug.
this kind of spending they are looking to do i would have no bother with if a stadium was being constructed but it isnt. football is an expensive business and they never should have entered it if they arent willing to invest unless all they want is a quick buck which i hope is what they are looking for.

Putting a lot of words in my mouth there mate: Where did I say that FSG have no money? H & G's model was unsustainable but to suggest they were useless businessmen is naive. They are both billionaires and that does not happen through being idiots or indeed useless. Horrible  fkrs yes - useless I don't think so.

Where is the evidence of FSG being opportunist vultures?

Work is progressing with the stadium so I'm not sure what you are

i misread that quote in your post and my apologies for it.
h&G were clueless to think that they could carry on the way they were and thats where the reference to useless businessmen came from, they got the club taken off them because they had no money to pay the loans, they couldnt even meet the costs of the lawsuit that they filed to stop the club being taken off them. their wealth is measured in assets, not cash and when it came to it they hadnt even got the price between them of a lawsuit. oh and george gillette was never a billionaire.
the evidence of them being opportunistic vultures is that they got into a new market with a leading brand for a steal despite not being the best offer, they want to self sustain the club so they dont have to put any money in and that to me is the behaviour befitting of a vulture or if you prefer then a leech. would they have bought us at £500mil ? or even any other premier league club ? no they seen that rbs was getting impatient and thus began circling.
what work is progressing with the stadium then ? talks more talks and more scheduled talks to come. have they hired a contractor yet ? have they put it out to tender ? have they aquired the necessary properties yet ?what exactly is it that they have done except talk ? they havent even lodged an application yet ffs
what do you mean your not sure what i am ?
are you reverting to type and labelling me an opposition fan now ?

red till i die!! » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:18 pm wrote:

devaney » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:58 pm wrote:They actually made a loss of over £50m in their first years trading. That is a meaningful sum of money and a lousy return on an investment of £300m. If they want LFC to be self sustainable then the money isn't going to just magically appear. We could go down the route of massive debt but that also has its obvious problems. You only have to rewind to the days of H & G to recognise what a disaster that can be. We are not owned by a company that has endless amounts of money and anybody expecting  Henry to use his own money is being deluded. He worked very hard to achieve his success so why should he watch his personal fortune potentially disappear by investing in a football club.

john henry did not buy us on his own so he was never going to be asked or indeed expected to dip in to his own personal fortune for anything.
fenway sports group are a private company who specialise in sports investment and it was their money that purchased the club. henry might be the major shareholder but there is several others that are apart of that group, ie: werner and lebron james to name 2 and they all are collecting some sort of dividend every year off us. fsg have quite a portfolio built up of sports business and recently purchased a newspaper so i dont know how you can conclude that they have no money.
H&G's model was not sustainable because of the way they did business as in one company lends money to another who in turn lends that to another and then eventually ending up in the clubs coffers. each company increased the lending rate and we ended up getting a loan with silly interest attached. combine that with the leveraged buyout of the club and we were unsustainable. they were useless businessmen and it would never work under them. if they actually paid some of the loans they had rather than continually refinancing they would still be here.
how do we know that they arent charging us interest for the loan to buy the club? what kind of timeframe is in place to recoup that investment ? what kind of salaries are they taking for the odd appearance here and there?. the reason why i mention this is because they could be fleecing us behind the scenes. you seem to think that they are hero's because they somehow saved us from extinction that was never, ever, ever, ever going to happen. i see them as opportunistic vultures who bought a business for much less than it was worth and are looking for maximum return for minimal investment which is great for them but not for us.
at the moment i find it hard not to agree with purslow's comments about them being bottom of the barrel. he also said they wont deliver a stadium and they have already said they will not fund it on their own. in fact one of the first things they did when they took over was scrap the plans that they inherited in the purchase price and heap the cost on to the club. they didnt pay for them but are making us pay twice and probably for a new set as well that might never even see a hole being dug.
this kind of spending they are looking to do i would have no bother with if a stadium was being constructed but it isnt. football is an expensive business and they never should have entered it if they arent willing to invest unless all they want is a quick buck which i hope is what they are looking for.

nail met head!

damjan193 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:58 pm wrote:

stmichael » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:22 pm wrote:Rodgers press conference in full

http://prev.lfc.vn/s14-w02-preview-villa/

He looks ill.

he looked downbeat alright but who can blame him, there is pressure in this job and he isnt getting much help from the owners. he is expected to compete with the best on less funds and if he cant the owners will hold him responsible.
as he admitted himself its a big ask

red till i die!! » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:04 pm wrote:

devaney » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:57 pm wrote:

red till i die!! » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:18 pm wrote:
john henry did not buy us on his own so he was never going to be asked or indeed expected to dip in to his own personal fortune for anything.
fenway sports group are a private company who specialise in sports investment and it was their money that purchased the club. henry might be the major shareholder but there is several others that are apart of that group, ie: werner and lebron james to name 2 and they all are collecting some sort of dividend every year off us. fsg have quite a portfolio built up of sports business and recently purchased a newspaper so i dont know how you can conclude that they have no money.
H&G's model was not sustainable because of the way they did business as in one company lends money to another who in turn lends that to another and then eventually ending up in the clubs coffers. each company increased the lending rate and we ended up getting a loan with silly interest attached. combine that with the leveraged buyout of the club and we were unsustainable. they were useless businessmen and it would never work under them. if they actually paid some of the loans they had rather than continually refinancing they would still be here.
how do we know that they arent charging us interest for the loan to buy the club? what kind of timeframe is in place to recoup that investment ? what kind of salaries are they taking for the odd appearance here and there?. the reason why i mention this is because they could be fleecing us behind the scenes. you seem to think that they are hero's because they somehow saved us from extinction that was never, ever, ever, ever going to happen. i see them as opportunistic vultures who bought a business for much less than it was worth and are looking for maximum return for minimal investment which is great for them but not for us.
at the moment i find it hard not to agree with purslow's comments about them being bottom of the barrel. he also said they wont deliver a stadium and they have already said they will not fund it on their own. in fact one of the first things they did when they took over was scrap the plans that they inherited in the purchase price and heap the cost on to the club. they didnt pay for them but are making us pay twice and probably for a new set as well that might never even see a hole being dug.
this kind of spending they are looking to do i would have no bother with if a stadium was being constructed but it isnt. football is an expensive business and they never should have entered it if they arent willing to invest unless all they want is a quick buck which i hope is what they are looking for.

Putting a lot of words in my mouth there mate: Where did I say that FSG have no money? H & G's model was unsustainable but to suggest they were useless businessmen is naive. They are both billionaires and that does not happen through being idiots or indeed useless. Horrible  fkrs yes - useless I don't think so.

Where is the evidence of FSG being opportunist vultures?

Work is progressing with the stadium so I'm not sure what you are

i misread that quote in your post and my apologies for it.
h&G were clueless to think that they could carry on the way they were and thats where the reference to useless businessmen came from, they got the club taken off them because they had no money to pay the loans, they couldnt even meet the costs of the lawsuit that they filed to stop the club being taken off them. their wealth is measured in assets, not cash and when it came to it they hadnt even got the price between them of a lawsuit. oh and george gillette was never a billionaire.
the evidence of them being opportunistic vultures is that they got into a new market with a leading brand for a steal despite not being the best offer, they want to self sustain the club so they dont have to put any money in and that to me is the behaviour befitting of a vulture or if you prefer then a leech. would they have bought us at £500mil ? or even any other premier league club ? no they seen that rbs was getting impatient and thus began circling.
what work is progressing with the stadium then ? talks more talks and more scheduled talks to come. have they hired a contractor yet ? have they put it out to tender ? have they aquired the necessary properties yet ?what exactly is it that they have done except talk ? they havent even lodged an application yet ffs
what do you mean your not sure what i am ?
are you reverting to type and labelling me an opposition fan now ?

Quality post mate

Red Till I Die - Sorry I posted my response before it was finished. Family just arrived for dinner and it would have been rude to ignore them.

The last sentence simply should have finished with the words: talking about. To suddenly suggest that I'm reverting to type when we were having what seemed a sensible discussion and accusing you of not being a Liverpool supporter is a tad confusing. I have never accused anybody on this forum of not being a Liverpool supporter except BTN but let's face it, it's a bit tricky taking him seriously with the mountain load of negative shight that he posts. Not sure where the reverting to type comment comes from.

My views of FSG may not be as harsh as yours. I certainly don't agree with everything they have done and to suggest that I think we owe them a huge debt of gratitude is wrong. I don't know if the owners of Spurs have accusations of greed thrown at them because they have spent considerably less than ourselves over the past three to four years. FSG could easily have kept the proceeds from the Torres sale but instead they allowed Kenny and Comolli to invest heavily in players. Unfortunately that was an unmitigated fk up which we are still recovering from. How many other clubs during this window have sold two players for a combined loss of £35m? That in itself takes a degree of commitment. I simply do not believe that they are the parasites you suggest.Simply because as a company they have bought a newspaper costing £70m doesn't necessarily mean they should invest more money in ourselves. FSG may well be be opportunistic but surely that is what any sensible business is all about. It doesn't necessarily mean they are vultures.

As for the Stadium when you look around Anfield more and more properties have been purchased. Speed of progress is painfully slow. I do however believe that work is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps I am wrong. Were FSG concerned about the results of the commitment campaign that permitted season ticket requests to be resubmitted at the cost of £5? Again I don't know.

With regards to the purchase price it also has to be remembered that FSG took on the £35m outstanding architectural fees amassed by H & G which contributed towards their first year losses of £52m. They also took over the massive costs of compensating Rafa and his team. The original sale price of £300m did seem incredibly cheap but I don't remember that many companies/individuals queuing up to buy us and certainly not for a lot more more. A company like any property is worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it. Where does your figure of £500m come from?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say they are possibly charging the club interest on the loan for buying the club. What loan? They paid cash. There is no suggestion of interest payments of the magnitude you suggest in the company accounts. I think that is an unreasonable suggestion.

Sorry for the confusion. You were certainly not being accused of anything.

Brendan, Brendan we love you
Brendan, Brendan we love you.

All day long!!

SouthCoastShankly » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:16 am wrote:

eds » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:49 am wrote:

"It’s disappointing because this was a player who would have been perfect for us"

This quote alone should be the ice cold shower the delusion squad on this forum need to have.

If he is perfect for us, there should be NO ifs or buts stopping us from buying them. 

It was the owners themselves saying if the right player was available they would do everything to sign them.

Actions speak louder than words.

So because he is a perfect fit it means money should not be an object?

You surely realise how stupid you sound right?

Also quite frankly a player who agrees personal terms and passes a medical, only to decide he is considering his options as soon as Chelsea come in is NOT the type of mercenary Liverpool FC want.

We have always been about signing players who WANT to play for us.

Are you reading other people's same opinions on this issue, or just scouring the forum looking for mine to comment on? 

The tide is turning against the owners and no matter what blind faith you and delusion squad have, our club's footballing interests will always out-weigh the clueless regime over in Boston.

It's hilarious that you actually think every player we sign wants to be here because they "want to play" for Liverpool FC and it has nothing to do with the paycheck they receive from the club. 

Most players are mercenaries, very few are loyal or have any sense of of it these days.

The problem is you won't build a quality side with that minority, inevitably you will need to bring in mercenaries just like Torres and Suarez's of this world.

Eds. if we keep Suarez and spend another £25m before the end of the transfer window would this go someway towards helping the antis move a little bit closer to the disillusioned ? I don't mind being disillusioned, it's less stressful